Should I get founders or deluxe editions?

The founders editions is available to February 28th. The deluxe edition doesn't seem to have an end date. The only thing that doesn't seem like it will come out as additional DLC are the two additional Personas, and the cosmetics.
If it was purely cosmetic, but personas have different abilities and agendas, from what I understand. So I would expect at least the two personas to be sold at some point later, if not the full Founders Content Pack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
From the FAQ on the official website:

Will any content from the Deluxe Content Pack or Founders Content Pack be available for individual purchase?

The Deluxe Content Pack will be available for individual purchase. The Founders Content Pack is available as part of the Sid Meier's Civilization VII Founders Edition, which is available until February 28, 2025.
Content inside each Pack is only available as part of that bundle.
However the Nintendo Switch store page lists each Persona individually (and also both cosmetic packs) as DLC content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
If you’re talking about disappointment in the content, that’s a non sequitur. We’re talking about the games not working properly at launch or close to launch, like due to bugs or something.
I mean, "we" are not talking about that, I think you're the only one who mentioned it?

Lack of content at launch and balancing issues are perfectly valid reasons to question the value of early access. No bugs required.

Civ 7 seems to lack sufficient Civs. It doesn't even matter if a few days is not a lot and you don't have time to experience everything anyway, I want to get to the Exploration Age and experience the breadth of options by simply being there as an option.

It very clearly gives "Civ 5 at release" vibes.
 
It very clearly gives "Civ 5 at release" vibes.
Civ5 at release didn't have a problem with too few civs. Civ5 at release had the problem of being a badly designed game whose good ideas were buried in bad implementation and a rushed development cycle. There is no sign, IMO, that Civ7 is facing those same problems. Indeed, the fact that Ed Beach lifted Civ5 out of the garbage and made something decent out of it and then made a solid game in Civ6 is why I trust Ed Beach to deliver a good product in Civ7.
 
Civ5 at release didn't have a problem with too few civs. Civ5 at release had the problem of being a badly designed game whose good ideas were buried in bad implementation and a rushed development cycle. There is no sign, IMO, that Civ7 is facing those same problems. Indeed, the fact that Ed Beach lifted Civ5 out of the garbage and made something decent out of it and then made a solid game in Civ6 is why I trust Ed Beach to deliver a good product in Civ7.
On the other hand, Ed did not so great job at handling Civ6, especially expansions.

IMHO, it's less about development leader personality and more about other factors like budget, time and the whole team.
 
On the other hand, Ed did not so great job at handling Civ6, especially expansions.
I have to disagree. Civ6 was solid, and GS was mostly great (except World Congress, ugh). R&F was more of a mixed bag but was developed by Anton Strenger, not Ed Beach.

IMHO, it's less about development leader personality and more about other factors like budget, time and the whole team.
They all matter, including having a lead developer with talent who knows what they're doing. Ed's track record at least makes me give him the benefit of the doubt. (As for the other factors, Civ7 has had more than double Civ5's development time, a large budget, and an experienced team.)
 
I have to disagree. Civ6 was solid, and GS was mostly great (except World Congress, ugh). R&F was more of a mixed bag but was developed by Anton Strenger, not Ed Beach.


They all matter, including having a lead developer with talent who knows what they're doing. Ed's track record at least makes me give him the benefit of the doubt. (As for the other factors, Civ7 has had more than double Civ5's development time, a large budget, and an experienced team.)
Thanks. I forgot R&F was made by another designer. Still I don't like GS the way you do - in addition to obvious World Congress, I also quite dislike natural disasters and energy/ecology theme implementation. But I have to agree, it's better than loyalty and golden/dark ages from R&F.
 
I mean, "we" are not talking about that, I think you're the only one who mentioned it?
I do think there is a point to what pokiehl said in that if your worry is about content / think civ track record means the content won't be enough at launch, then having the week earlier or at launch won't make a difference. You should likely not preorder and probably wait at least months if not years before buying it, as that is the amount of time that takes for a lot of content to be added.

So when AriochIV mentioned about the value of having that week earlier, I think it is fair to assume it meant the type of launch problems like lots of bugs, bugs that make you can't play the game, frequent crashes and the like. The type of thing that a hotfix can generally fix in a few days to a few weeks. For a company or game series where that tends to happen, then getting a week early access would means just get an extra week of barely playable game, so making it pretty much indistinguishable from getting at the main release time.
 
Civ5 at release didn't have a problem with too few civs. Civ5 at release had the problem of being a badly designed game whose good ideas were buried in bad implementation and a rushed development cycle. There is no sign, IMO, that Civ7 is facing those same problems. Indeed, the fact that Ed Beach lifted Civ5 out of the garbage and made something decent out of it and then made a solid game in Civ6 is why I trust Ed Beach to deliver a good product in Civ7.

Civ V wouldn't have a problem with lack of civs because that's a problem specific to Civ VII. It's fundamental to the core gameplay.

I recall playing Civ V for a bit but soon going back to Civ IV because it felt incomplete.

CIV VII releasing with 30 civs feels incomplete. It doesn't feel incomplete in accordance to some ideal notion of what should be in the game, but by the expectations set by the game itself.

At release, which is all we are talking about here, it qualifies as a "good idea buried in bad implementation".

I'm also not sure how "this isn't due to a rushed cycle, it was our plan all along" makes it better.

This has nothing to do with Ed Beach's competence overall.
 
Civ V wouldn't have a problem with lack of civs because that's a problem specific to Civ VII. It's fundamental to the core gameplay.

I recall playing Civ V for a bit but soon going back to Civ IV because it felt incomplete.

CIV VII releasing with 30 civs feels incomplete. It doesn't feel incomplete in accordance to some ideal notion of what should be in the game, but by the expectations set by the game itself.

At release, which is all we are talking about here, it qualifies as a "good idea buried in bad implementation".

I'm also not sure how "this isn't due to a rushed cycle, it was our plan all along" makes it better.

This has nothing to do with Ed Beach's competence overall.
To me, the fundamental difference is that vanilla Civ5 was a bad game because of bad design decisions and a bad development cycle. I don't think the same is true of Civ7.
 
To me, the fundamental difference is that vanilla Civ5 was a bad game because of bad design decisions and a bad development cycle. I don't think the same is true of Civ7.
The biggest downside of Civ5 at launch was lack of attention for late game play. They tested early game a lot, but late game was quite terrible. This came from both time limit and lack of experience in management.
 
I thought Civ 5 was fine at release, I remember putting hundreds of hours into it. I think it will be better than Civ 7.

Re the OP I'm also confused. Will the founders edition save me money if I'll buy all the dlc anyway? At the moment I'm going for the deluxe edition.
 
Re-litigating the early issues of Civ5 and 6 is beyond the scope of this thread, but I'm perplexed that you don't seem to remember any problems.

I have a number of very specific memories of the early days of Civ VI. Including my first game (with Rome), finding that lategame science costs were too low and that someone (I think Olleus?) made a mod for that within a day, and that my old laptop had some weird energy saving feature that made the game lag if I wasn't plugged in, which led to me playing Civ IV instead when I was on the train.

What I do not remember, however, are significant early issues - balance doesn't qualify, and neither does an old laptop doing something weird. So perhaps you could name a few of the issues Civ VI had on release, according to you? Because with the number of memories I have from the early days, I would expect to also remember such issues if they existed.

Oh, right, one other memory I have: the game being praised on these forums for releasing in a better state than either IV or V.

The biggest downside of Civ5 at launch was lack of attention for late game play. They tested early game a lot, but late game was quite terrible. This came from both time limit and lack of experience in management.

Yeah, agreed.

Except for global happiness, that was an even bigger downside. As was science and culture costs scaling with city count. And how much better Tradition was than Liberty, further punishing the player for trying to build an empire. And the misleading game mechanic of city connections providing extra income... but roads having upkeep which cancels this out, meaning you can't actually improve your economy that way. And the incredibly one-dimensional way of building improvements. None of the choices of Civ IV, none of the real estate competition of Civ VI. And... well let's just say that a few months ago I decided to play a full game start to finish specifically to freshen up on why I dislike the game so much, and despite that I hardly managed a hundred turns before I gave up on the torturous experience. And that's after the game received two expansions and years of updates.
 
I thought Civ 5 was fine at release, I remember putting hundreds of hours into it. I think it will be better than Civ 7.
Observation: satisfaction with Civ5 on release tends to be related to Civ5 being one's first Civ game. Those who joined the series with Civ5 enjoyed it, while those who played previous titles hated it. Personally, even with expansions I'd consider Civ5 the second worst game in the franchise, only above Civ3.
 
Yeah, agreed.

Except for global happiness, that was an even bigger downside. As was science and culture costs scaling with city count. And how much better Tradition was than Liberty, further punishing the player for trying to build an empire. And the misleading game mechanic of city connections providing extra income... but roads having upkeep which cancels this out, meaning you can't actually improve your economy that way. And the incredibly one-dimensional way of building improvements. None of the choices of Civ IV, none of the real estate competition of Civ VI. And... well let's just say that a few months ago I decided to play a full game start to finish specifically to freshen up on why I dislike the game so much, and despite that I hardly managed a hundred turns before I gave up on the torturous experience. And that's after the game received two expansions and years of updates.
Yeah, each person have different experience, but Civ5 still have a pretty solid player base, just about 2.5 lower than Civ6 based on Steam data and Civ6 is much newer. To me, in its current state, Civ5 is on the same level if not better than Civ6.
 
My history with the franchise is being a "completist". I eventually buy all the expansion packs, as I did for Civ3, Civ4, and Civ5. With Civ6, I waited to buy Gethering Storm. Then I bought NFP s that I could get LP for free. As I look at my Civ6 DLC collection, I don't think that I'm missing any of the items that were special launch-related, or pre-order-related.

My working assumption is that everything in both the Deluxe Edition and Founders Edition will eventually be included in a bundle. So we're back to trading off time vs. money.
Do I spend $30 USD now, or spend something like $30 USD later for an expansion that gives me even more DLC? It's super hard for me to predict the incremental enjoyment I will get from having those civ choices and leader personas in February 2025, vs. getting them in December 2025 (guess). For me, early access to the game means very little.
 
Observation: satisfaction with Civ5 on release tends to be related to Civ5 being one's first Civ game. Those who joined the series with Civ5 enjoyed it, while those who played previous titles hated it. Personally, even with expansions I'd consider Civ5 the second worst game in the franchise, only above Civ3.

I've got 418 hours into Civ V.

I don't know the exact number, but I'm pretty sure I was already sitting at over 400 hours when I first touched Civ IV and Civ VI (which was around the same time, as the anticipation around the Civ VI release is what prompted me to buy Civ IV).

It was fun. Until I learned just how much better a Civ game could be. Turned out the fun didn't come from the game, but rather the genre, and was there despite the game.

(for reference, Civ VI is currently sitting at 980 hours for me, and Civ IV at a little over 750 hours, although some 500+ of those hours are from Caveman2Cosmos, which I got into last December)
 
I have to disagree. Civ6 was solid, and GS was mostly great (except World Congress, ugh). R&F was more of a mixed bag but was developed by Anton Strenger, not Ed Beach.


They all matter, including having a lead developer with talent who knows what they're doing. Ed's track record at least makes me give him the benefit of the doubt. (As for the other factors, Civ7 has had more than double Civ5's development time, a large budget, and an experienced team.)
I also think their willingness to talk about the game(s) and the dev process provide indicators about whether people are going to be optimistic and give them the benefit of the doubt or not. Those who see a trend towards more board game and narrative and less sandbox as a central problem will be more worried than you or I, I think. To me, the care they put into the game comes across when I see them talk and the focus on "feeling" like a Civ game that they talk about makes me willing to give them the benefit of the doubt too.
 
Back
Top Bottom