Should we expect expansions?

[TheMeInTeam]

They do the same, though.

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

If Firaxis stoops to Paradox level I'll be very disappointed.

I've never seen Firaxis remove game options in patches then sell them back in DLC, at least not in games I've played.

I can list of half a dozen times I've witnessed this in a single Paradox title, and have avoided buying Stellaris because I have strong reason to actively distrust both one of the developers on that team (not a fan of arrogant disdain for customers while being dishonest at the same time) and Paradox grand strategy track record as a whole.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

In my opininion the DLC's should have some decent content, like 2 civs + maps/scenario's. I don't expect new game mechanics in a DLC as it will require balancing, but the content shouldn't be meager either.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

They already revealed next 4 DLC will be civs and maps.

 

[Menzies]

If Firaxis stoops to Paradox level I'll be very disappointed.

I've never seen Firaxis remove game options in patches then sell them back in DLC, at least not in games I've played.

I can list of half a dozen times I've witnessed this in a single Paradox title, and have avoided buying Stellaris because I have strong reason to actively distrust both one of the developers on that team (not a fan of arrogant disdain for customers while being dishonest at the same time) and Paradox grand strategy track record as a whole.

When have they ever removed something sell back as a DLC?

 

[MadDjinn]

When have they ever removed something sell back as a DLC?

multiple times.

What Paradox is 'famous' for is completely revamping a core mechanic, adding in part of that new system in the free patch, then selling the rest of the mechanic in the DLC.

No DLC? have a partial implementation which removed the utility of the mechanic, unless you buy the DLC. Or be forced to use prior versions of the game where you don't get the bug fixing either.

 

[Menzies]

multiple times.

What Paradox is 'famous' for is completely revamping a core mechanic, adding in part of that new system in the free patch, then selling the rest of the mechanic in the DLC.

No DLC? have a partial implementation which removed the utility of the mechanic, unless you buy the DLC. Or be forced to use prior versions of the game where you don't get the bug fixing either.

Well if it's famous it won't be hard to give me some examples then.

 

[dexters]

If they don't do expansions they're leaving money on the table.

It's still early days, but I am excited to see a Civ game carry over most of the features from the previous Civ game. So we're not having to rebuy features they cut out in a future expansion.

This leaves a lot of room for them to go in more interesting directions in at least 1 of the 2 expansions.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well if it's famous it won't be hard to give me some examples then.

Of course. I wouldn't throw down such a gauntlet if I didn't already have evidence. Here's a starter, not-comprehensive list I've posted:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14258510&postcount=2765

I didn't even touch on them removing a distance CB same patch they sold a new one, heavy increase in monarch points required to expand (and selling extra access to monarch points in DLC), or other subject interactions including a 2nd means of lowering liberty desire on a different DLC, or DLC locking government ranks (while attaching previously available things like diplomats and ticking -LA to government rank so you were strictly worse off than previous patch without DLC).

In short, their behavior in just EU IV is egregiously EA-esque. It's as bad if not worse when compared to something like Madden franchise mode.

Firaxis, to the best of my knowledge, has never done this. It has never compared its customer base to children publicly. It hasn't derided players who are upset with game mechanics they don't understand while the UI does not give them the reason something is behaving unexpectedly.

In short, comparing Firaxis to Paradox is an insult to Firaxis , and I really, really don't want to see that cancerous DLC model spreading to Civilization. If they try to nickel and dime away/resell features as part of their "expansions" it's one of the few things to get me to stop buying, as it did for Paradox. Fortunately, Firaxis/2k hasn't pulled that nonsense and so utterly breached rational consumer trust.

 

[dexters]

Well if it's famous it won't be hard to give me some examples then.

Cities Skylines is paradox published and follows this as well.

Snowfall DLC was widely panned (I didn't mind it, as the core game is awesome)
Vanilla and DLC1 users get some basic weather effects that doesn't impact game
DLC 2- Snowfall users get the snow maps.

But the issue with Snowfall is people are upset you have to start a new city to get snow and it's locked behind a snow specific tileset.

It's a very different approach from what Firaxis/2K has traditionally done with DLC. There's clear defined downloads, no baiting. And their expansions are generally more fleshed out. Yes $15-20 more expensive than PDX expansions, but well worth it.

 

[Mivo]

Paradox do release patches often, though, sometimes several a week, and they very actively communicate with the player base (including roadmaps with estimated times). Firaxis are far less accessible and significantly slower in responding to balancing and technical issues. Looking at Civ 5, it only turned into a complete game after expansions, and felt rather incomplete before.

Anyway, I'd be very surprised if Civ 6 didn't have two or more large expansions plus a ton of DLC. It took me a few years to get used to buying games in pieces, but by now I actually look at it as something that keeps games fresh. Kind of like content patches in MMOs.

 

[dexters]

Paradox do release patches often, though, sometimes several a week, and they very actively communicate with the player base (including roadmaps with estimated times). Firaxis are far less accessible and significantly slower in responding to balancing and technical issues. Looking at Civ 5, it only turned into a complete game after expansions, and felt rather incomplete before.

Anyway, I'd be very surprised if Civ 6 didn't have two or more large expansions plus a ton of DLC. It took me a few years to get used to buying games in pieces, but by now I actually look at it as something that keeps games fresh. Kind of like content patches in MMOs.

Prior to GK there were various balance patches that fixed Civ5. These included major changes to some of the buildings (i believe this is when stables was added and circus was made into a contingent building), an overhaul of diplomacy and adjustment to city states.

That patch was largely overshadowed by the expansions which were great and did restore Civ5's reputation, but the game was 'fixed' before then. People just forgot about it.

G&K in particular built on those fixes to vanilla.

 

[spfun]

I just really hope the tech count of 40-50 doesn't shorten the game to much, I hope for 10+ techs in each future expansion. I also hope that if there's only 40-50 techs, that winning a game happens way past the time of researching all techs. So we can have some actual endgame combat with nukes and stuff for a change.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I just really hope the tech count of 40-50 doesn't shorten the game to much, I hope for 10+ techs in each future expansion. I also hope that if there's only 40-50 techs, that winning a game happens way past the time of researching all techs. So we can have some actual endgame combat with nukes and stuff for a change.

There can be fewer techs with higher science thresholds. Presumably this will make the incidental tech boosts seem more enticing, but also more likely to constrain you to a tech path based on geography.

 

[nokmirt]

I think we will have two expansions and several DLCs.

 

[nokmirt]

They already revealed next 4 DLC will be civs and maps.

Most likely scenario DLCs.

 

[daft]

Another silly thread, what sort of a question is this?
Of course there will be expansions! As usual.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If they don't do expansions they're leaving money on the table.

I doubt it. In Civ5 expansion cost was about cost of 3 Civ+Scenario DLC. So just selling the civs and scenarios from expansion separately could potentially bring more money than selling expansion as a whole, even without any gameplay additions.

Of course, the trick is to keep people interested in the game with good amount with free updates, but the gameplay changes don't have to be as massive as separate expansions.

Another silly thread, what sort of a question is this?
Of course there will be expansions! As usual.

I like this "As usual". Civ 1 had no expansions, Civ 2 had 2 scenario packs, Civ 3 and 4 had 2 expansions, Civ 5 had 2 expansions and small DLC. Time changes, market changes.

 

[m15a]

I doubt it. In Civ5 expansion cost was about cost of 3 Civ+Scenario DLC. So just selling the civs and scenarios from expansion separately could potentially bring more money than selling expansion as a whole, even without any gameplay additions.

It could potentially, but the actual outcome would depend on the sales. The increased sales of full expansions might more than outweigh the costs of developing gameplay additions. From what I've read on here, very few people were interested in buying the Scrambled Nations and Scrambled Continents map packs as separate DLC although buying BNW was almost a given for people that were still playing Civ V around when it came out.

Time changes, market changes.

I think that's fair - it's not definite since the market might change. But having expansion packs go with the last 3 Civ games (and BE) does show a trend. That is a small sample set, sure, but I'd expect anyone predicting that there *won't* be expansion packs give some reasons to expect changes to the market (or the internal operation of Firaxis).

 

[dexters]

I doubt it. In Civ5 expansion cost was about cost of 3 Civ+Scenario DLC. So just selling the civs and scenarios from expansion separately could potentially bring more money than selling expansion as a whole, even without any gameplay additions.
.

If Civ6 is half as polished as they promised (a pessimistic view) and they eventually limp to patching it to being good (Firaxis has had not a good record of launching a clean vanilla Civ) then there will be expansions.

Because Civ5 came out in 2010 and Civ6 is just coming out in 2016. They justified supporting Civ5 for six years because of the DLCs and XP.

That's good for players. Want features added/fixed. Game balanced better and AI tweaked? The post release patching can only go so far. Most of those fixes get bundled into the budget for expansion packs. That's usually how the base game and AI gets improved over-time.

It's good for players too as a lot of AI flaws and counters to human play won't become apparent until a year or two has passed and the devs has had a look at popular playstyles and they try to rebalance the game around what they don't like and try to get the AI to respond better to strategies they see as popular.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That's good for players.

I disagree. I found the expansion system to be a big problem in civilization series. They release main game with small set of features, then fix it it with patches. Then they release an expansion barely fitting the original game and try to patch it. Then they release the second expansion with problems fitting the previous 2. Not only the game in this stage is chimera, but game lifecycle is near the end by this stage so we only see 1-2 patches fixing obvious things only.

Take Civ5, for example. The strength of cities in defense makes tall empires too good. With features of BNW which make tall empires so much better it would be reasonable to rebalance the military system to make cities more vulnerable - but this would require changes all over the system and BNW already changed a lot.

Personally I'd prefer all systems in place right away, made for each other right away and later just polish it patches to perfection, no huge additions.