Should we expect expansions?

[stealth_nsk]

Previous Civ titles were released somehow stripped bare - with "1 feature in - 1 feature out" game design approach, now we have Civ6 announced to have all features from the release. Could it mean the Civ5 model of small DLC was successful enough, so we shouldn't expect any expansions?

If I'm not mistaken, the cost of Civ5 expansion on release was about 4 DLC containing 1 Civ and some maps/scenario, so this surely profitable, considering developers will be able to maintain interest in the game for 2-3 years with patches and interesting DLC civs.

 

[kaspergm]

I'm definitely expecting expansions. There are huge gaps left to fill even with all BnW content being in - late-game economic modelling (coorporations, industrial resources) being a major example - and some parts also need fleshing out (the espionage system in Civ5 was, at best, half-hearted imo.). Also, after the negative feedback to the DLC mechanism in Civ5, I find it unlikely that they'll resort to that as the major way of expanding the game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm definitely expecting expansions. There are huge gaps left to fill even with all BnW content being in - late-game economic modelling (coorporations, industrial resources) being a major example - and some parts also need fleshing out (the espionage system in Civ5 was, at best, half-hearted imo.). Also, after the negative feedback to the DLC mechanism in Civ5, I find it unlikely that they'll resort to that as the major way of expanding the game.

1. Too many features is generally a bad thing and makes game unplayable. If they'll have all the BNW features, I doubt things like corporations will come in painfully.

2. We already know first 4 DLC will be Civ5-style, it's written on the steam page.

 

[kaspergm]

1. I disagree.

2. Yes, I know. I'm expecting DLC civs like in Civ5. Doesn't mean that will be the major part of expanding the game.

 

[Menzies]

There will be expansions. They went down the DLC route last time and rather than everyone asking for Hitler as a playable character they argued that Hitler was already in and going by the name DLC, claiming that the monster not only killed expansions, but wore its skin in a grotesque display of dominance. As it turned out, as many expected, we received two brilliant expansions despite the DLC.

I don't doubt that we will likely see another phase of DLC following the games' release, probably going by a different name, followed by larger expansions again. If they're still a bit scarred from their last experience with DLC, we may well only get expansions. I have no doubt however that we will get expansions again, because the fans enjoy them and should we not, there will be quite a lot of whining.

They are creative, they know their stuff, and I don't doubt they could have put out another expansion or two for Civ V should they have felt the burning desire to do so. Just because the game will release with plenty of content doesn't mean that they won't be able to find more ideas and expand further.

Edit: Yep, as mentioned above it seems that there will be at least 4 DLCs following release that will go down the route that Civ V initially followed. So that would suggest that we will likely follow a similar model to Civ V.

 

[stealth_nsk]

1. I disagree.

It's quite subjective, but most of game design guides (and my personal) experience say what strategy games with less features tied together well are better than large heaps of features. Like this:

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/FabianFischer/20141201/231243/Criteria_for_Strategy_Game_Design.php

In general though, a great design expresses itself in as few and simple components as possible.

Or Sid Meier:

There’s a temptation to create “the ultimate game of all time,” so keep your focus on a couple of cool features, make sure those are great

EDIT:

Yep, as mentioned above it seems that there will be at least 4 DLCs following release that will go down the route that Civ V initially followed. So that would suggest that we will likely follow a similar model to Civ V.

For Civ5 it was experiment, with Civ6 they know the odds already. And Civ5 was designed with minimal set of features in mind, while Civ6 states to cover as much as possible.

 

[Menzies]

It's quite subjective, but most of game design guides (and my personal) experience say what strategy games with less features tied together well are better than large heaps of features. Like this:

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/FabianFischer/20141201/231243/Criteria_for_Strategy_Game_Design.php


Or Sid Meier:

...then there's Paradox games...

The point that Sid makes is more that in development you should concentrate on producing quality features, not a quantity of them. The thing about expansions is that each feature can be its central focus, and hence that is a moot point.

That's not to say that you can't have too many features, as that is very possible, but usually the issue is that they went too hard at trying to include everything at once and failed to make them work properly, particularly in unison, not that having such features is problematic in and of itself.

Edit:

For Civ5 it was experiment, with Civ6 they know the odds already. And Civ5 was designed with minimal set of features in mind, while Civ6 states to cover as much as possible.

That in and of itself isn't a reason to not have expansions though. Games can always be improved upon, and they noted that at the end of the Civ V development cycle. There are always things that could be added should they do it properly.

People argued during that quiet period between Civ V's DLC being released and Gods & Kings that there would never be an expansion, and one of the reasons given by some was that they wouldn't want to ruin it by adding more features. As funny as that sounds now the difference between good developers and bad ones much of the time is the ability to actually see where to go with an idea. You never know, maybe they will release a game that they never feel could be improved by more content (beyond things like Civs), but as we've seen in the past, even with a content dense game like Civ IV, that they will at the very least try (though I would argue they failed with Beyond the Sword, at least initially). The financial side with expansions if nothing else will ensure that.

 

[kaspergm]

It's quite subjective, but most of game design guides (and my personal) experience say what strategy games with less features tied together well are better than large heaps of features.

Theoretically, yes. Also in practice, Civ5 was just not there yet by a long stretch. Most of the games, unless you went for conquest, later half of the game basically had nothing to do other than to sit and click and micro-manage your empire and move some Great Works around perhaps. Plus the game suffered from an absolutely zero incentive for late-game expansion. So there was plenty of room to add new features if you ask me.

 

[Ryika]

I agree that "feature creep" can be a big problem, but BNW clearly still has some gaps that could be filled with new features that make sense. Late-game Economy has been named and I agree very much with that.

Otherwise they could also go down a different route and just add an additional era to the start and the end of the game and then put some interesting new ideas into those. We already have them as mods for CiV and people seemed to like that idea a lot. The same expansion could fill in some of the blanks and weaknesses that'll inevitably appear in the tech web, maybe add some stuff that is themed around human progress through the ages and there you go - you have an expansion.

A bit of an unconventional one, but that may just be the result of a situation that never before existed in Civ - that (in this theoretical example) we have a game that simply doesn't "need" an expansion to fix the problems with the main game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

...then there's Paradox games...

...with roughly 10 times less sales numbers...

Games can always be improved upon, and they noted that at the end of the Civ V development cycle. There are always things that could be added should they do it properly.

Yes, but the matter of improvements is different. It's possible to introduce new features via free patches, while selling small DLC. That's more modern way than having large expansions which require separate support for different versions (2 versions of the game with 1 expansion, 4 versions of game with 2 expansions).

Theoretically, yes. Also in practice, Civ5 was just not there yet by a long stretch. Most of the games, unless you went for conquest, later half of the game basically had nothing to do other than to sit and click and micro-manage your empire and move some Great Works around perhaps. Plus the game suffered from an absolutely zero incentive for late-game expansion. So there was plenty of room to add new features if you ask me.

I'd say that's the problem of expansion. Vanilla Civ5 didn't pay enough attention for late-game to keep features at minimal. Expansions tried to push the late-game gameplay not planned beforehand and thus had their problems. At this point BNW already have peaceful gameplay much more viable and adding more options for peaceful game would only worsen the situation. To fix this the game needs to be rethough from the ground up, not just throw more things in.

 

[Menzies]

...with roughly 10 times less sales numbers...

Whilst they haven't the raw sales of some larger publishers, they are doing extremely well for themselves these days. The simple point is that good content can be added to good games that seem like they're already content dense. It's also more like 7-8 times at this point, and they've usually got 3-4 major series out at once, with an expansions a couple expansions a year for each.

Yes, but the matter of improvements is different. It's possible to introduce new features via free patches, while selling small DLC. That's more modern way than having large expansions which require separate support for different versions (2 versions of the game with 1 expansion, 4 versions of game with 2 expansions).

Ironically a central part of Paradox's business model. The thing is this wasn't uncommon at the time Civ V was released, and was even back then used as an argument for why the DLC meant that expansions were dead.

For the record, the model isn't the "support 4 versions with 2 expansions", it's to support one version, the expansion version. For example, with Civ V (if memory serves me right) Brave New World included the content from Gods & Kings, except the Civs that came with it. The same process would likely happen here.

 

[stealth_nsk]

For the record, the model isn't the "support 4 versions with 2 expansions", it's to support one version, the expansion version. For example, with Civ V (if memory serves me right) Brave New World included the content from Gods & Kings, except the Civs that came with it. The same process would likely happen here.

This model could be also called "paid patches" - you need to buy expansion to continue receiving game fixes. I believe it's much worse approach than having all updates for full base version and optional DLCs.

 

[anandus]

...then there's Paradox games...

They do the same, though.

A first set of features and then increasing complexity through expansions.

 

[Haphaz]

2. We already know first 4 DLC will be Civ5-style, it's written on the steam page.

Good spot. Wow - £70 for the game + 4 DLCs. That's a lot - although the £ per gaming hour will probably be ridiculously cheap as always (for me it's about 6p per hour for Civ5).

I've always thought they could charge me £100 for a civ game and I'd pay it. I've only just realised that they already do. Yay capitalism!

 

[Menzies]

This model could be also called "paid patches" - you need to buy expansion to continue receiving game fixes. I believe it's much worse approach than having all updates for full base version and optional DLCs.

Except the idea is that the pre-expansion game is meant to be complete at that point, that is, they don't need more patches. Something isn't a "paid patch" if it has a wealth of new content in features just as Civ VI isn't going to be a paid patch for Civ V.

Again, these are arguments that actually happened when Civ V was still quite young. The point that came from that though was that people liked being able to buy individual Civs (eventually, and once expansions were announced) and that people liked having the larger more content rich expansions as well.

It's possible they may try a new business model, but the simple point is that people can make such arguments no matter which way you go with it. You may call expansions "paid patches", while others call DLC chopping up expansions and selling at a premium.

They do the same, though.

A first set of features and then increasing complexity through expansions.

The point I meant there was that they start with a complex deep game with many features, then just keep going. It was meant to demonstrate that there are companies that have successfully taken games which are already deep and rich in features and systems, and continue adding to them without ruining them.

 

[anandus]

The point I meant there was that they start with a complex deep game with many features, then just keep going. It was meant to demonstrate that there are companies that have successfully taken games which are already deep and rich in features and systems, and continue adding to them without ruining them.

Ah, I misunderstood

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think they are going to try multiple mini-expansions this time. Each one focused on improving a single feature that is rudimentary in the base game and add a few civs.

 

[MadDjinn]

always expect expansions for mainline civ titles -- it's their business plan for extending the life of the game out over multiple years so that they don't have to do games every other year or so.

Just because they're saying that most/all of the features from BNW will be in Civvi doesn't mean they will all be 'super flushed out and no changes could make them better!!!' sort of thing.

plus, they're very much not going to add 40+ civs to the base game - that would take another 2-3 years of art and mechanic additions and changes etc etc.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I anticipate expansions, they make money and done well can be worth their tag.

 

[AriochIV]

Unless it's a commercial failure, I expect both DLC and expansions.

I'm hoping they don't nickel and dime us with individual civ DLC's again, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have some kind of DLC, given what they've done recently with XCOM2.