Should we expect expansions?

[dexters]

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.

I think you are misunderstanding. Had there been no expansions. Firaxis might have never finished patching vanilla Civ5. A lot of patching work that went into vanilla benefited the 1st expansion.

Games history is littered with unpatched games after publisher pulled plug on the game or due to financial issues. These games usually saw support end early because they never received an expansion and thus, there was no financial sense to keep patching.

My view is, we generally want the vanilla game to be followed up by at least 1 expansion. It gives the developers 1 year plus to patch the base game as they work on the expansion. A lot of that patching may not be possible if the developers decide to cut their losses and just milk the base game sales since they have no budget to do anything more.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think you are misunderstanding. Had there been no expansions. Firaxis might have never finished patching vanilla Civ5. A lot of patching work that went into vanilla benefited the 1st expansion.

Civ5 was developed with minimal set of features, it required expansions. And you remember how the new features were added in G&K? The Piety tree managing both religion and culture? This was fixed in BNW, but with its own set of problems.

I've already mention the key requirement for having civ without expansions - it should keep player attention with free updates, which should be more than just patches, may be introducing some small features, new techs, etc. On the other hand, they don't need to be groundbreaking - evolution, not revolution.

 

[dexters]

Civ5 was developed with minimal set of features, it required expansions. And you remember how the new features were added in G&K? The Piety tree managing both religion and culture? This was fixed in BNW, but with its own set of problems.

I've already mention the key requirement for having civ without expansions - it should keep player attention with free updates, which should be more than just patches, may be introducing some small features, new techs, etc. On the other hand, they don't need to be groundbreaking - evolution, not revolution.

I just don't think free updates is viable if you following their Civ5 timeline

Vanilla > +1.5 years Expansion 1 > + 2.5 years Expansion 2 > +5.5 years announced next entry ; The staff needs to get paid for at least 5 years. Vanilla sales, even DLC sales won't be enough.

the vanilla game will need to be full priced most of the time for this to make sense. And given the current Steam economy, it's not going to work. People expect sales of older games frequently. or the game is simply not going to be bought.

Expansions make sense because 1) they can put the vanilla game on sale to gain new users 2) it generates interest for their brand each time an expansion comes out.

It's not an accident Civ5 was on sale each time they announce/release an expansion.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I just don't think free updates is viable if you following their Civ5 timeline

Vanilla > +1.5 years Expansion 1 > + 2.5 years Expansion 2 > +5.5 years announced next entry ; The staff needs to get paid for at least 5 years. Vanilla sales, even DLC sales won't be enough.

They need to keep interest only while selling things, so 3-4 years should be enough. I'm not sure they could do this, but if I were in their shoes, I'd try. If this wouldn't work, making an expansion could be considered back.

the vanilla game will need to be full priced most of the time for this to make sense.

Nope, the idea is to make sales form mini DLC with Civs and scenarios. The could bring more than full-scale expansions.

 

[Haig]

I automatically thought "of course, there shall be two expansions and some dlc and that's good" but now I think we can't base it on previous games, who knows if the team tries the "Paradox style" this time, with smaller expansions but more often.

Gods & Kings and Brave New World were great, but that's also because the vanilla Civ V was so.. basic.

If they would release several mini-expansions, with balancing and 1-2 big features each, they could react to balance issues more often and finetune the game.

Not sure which way I would like to more. Of course it's always fun to have the pre-expansion speculations and screenshot analyses.

 

[labellavienna]

That is like asking if trees will have leaves lol. Sorry not meant to be rude.

 

[Stilgar08]

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

source?

 

[stealth_nsk]

source?

http://store.steampowered.com/app/289070/

Expand your empire further with the Civilization VI Digital Deluxe which includes the full base game, the 25th Anniversary Digital Soundtrack, and access to four post-launch DLC packs* that will add new maps, scenarios, civilizations and leaders for a bundled discount.

 

[Stilgar08]

you're right. I simply overread this. Thx. Couldn't care less for scenarios and maps but wanna have the civs, of course

 

[Menzies]

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.

I was hoping for a little bit better to be honest. Most of the complaints are just misunderstandings or whinging about the developers being honest with their reasoning, something that even if you disagree with, should be hailed. I far prefer Johan telling people to suck it up even if his argument is trash, as it at least shows that he's and his staff interact honestly and properly with their customer base. What's more is that they actually improve on things through community discussion, particularly with the modding community.

Things like "This trend continues back, for example at one point you could vassal feed freely without DLC. Then they patched that out. Then they sold it back in AoW, stronger than ever, but only if you have the DLC." speak of a deep misunderstanding of how the underlying systems work. No feature was "taken then sold back" they completely rebalanced the game in regard to "vassal feeding" and rebuilt it differently. From the wording you gave I can only assume that you're referring to client states, which are a very end game part which are an entirely different vassal system and not related to the feeding mechanics that were nerfed.

They have their moments of doing strange things, but for games of such scale they do things pretty well. To claim they chop features to sell back is also not the case, and your linked post only showed a misunderstanding of game systems and features, and how their DLC model actually worked.

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.

About the only thing they've done wrong in Skylines is the mess with Snowfall. They stuck rigidly the system they were using and released snow as a tileset (and mods allow you to alter cities you're already playing). A poor expansion and poorly received, but they as a whole had been doing very well with their community and adding content for free well over a period of time. If anything they were actually one of the good guys.

I don't recall a situation where Paradox have ever been unclear with what is in the DLC either. When they release a new build with DLC they announce exactly what is and isn't behind the DLC. I could understand people not being happy that the game has moved on to that new built (though you can keep playing the old one), but not that they couldn't understand what was in the DLC, they are very up front with that, releasing detailed patch notes.

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.

Which is exactly the point for them. They see it as a constant evolution, and whilst it's not what I want to see for Civ VI, it is something that has it's place. They continue to improve and build on their games, and talk with their communities and build on what they already have.

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.

There were a couple of small additions. I remember the rage about the fountain of youth being added, that was great fun. Civ V at release was no where near as good as it was now, but it was hardly the worst thing ever at release, and had definitely been improved by that point, but that's very different to what Paradox do.

 

[Gorbles]

Just a small interjection here, but praising people for being "honest", when that honesty is basically just unfettered rudeness, really raises flags for me of late. Especially when you admit that their arguments might be "trash".

Honesty for honesty's sake isn't necessarily a representation of a Good Person, or Good Action. I dislike that it's been made into that in cultural terms in recent years. We're not politicians here. We shouldn't be judged by that kind of metric. Sometimes, rude behaviour is just that - rude behaviour.

 

[Menzies]

Just a small interjection here, but praising people for being "honest", when that honesty is basically just unfettered rudeness, really raises flags for me of late. Especially when you admit that their arguments might be "trash".

Honesty for honesty's sake isn't necessarily a representation of a Good Person, or Good Action. I dislike that it's been made into that in cultural terms in recent years. We're not politicians here. We shouldn't be judged by that kind of metric. Sometimes, rude behaviour is just that - rude behaviour.

Trash was probably the wrong word, but usually they listen to their fans as a whole and issues are sorted long term. I recall maybe one or two instances of them taking it out against someone who wasn't just trashing a game in a completely non-constructive manner, and even then they were hardly expressing their opinions in a constructive manner. It's not as though someone said "I'd like an expansion that has more boats" and they came out with machetes for them.

To me at least though I much rather a company be more direct and honest about their thought process than take several months with cleansed media releases which tell us very little, and ultimately still don't deliver what people wanted. Yeah, if you're one for getting your feelings hurt then going on the Paradox forums and insulting the game, its creators and every decision they have ever made is probably not for you.

 

[ls612]

Moderator Action: Let's stay on topic here.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The point of my bringing up pdox wasn't to do pure smear run on pdox, but to highlight against a previous poster that Firaxis adopting that DLC model would be unacceptable and is one of the few things (alongside releasing a title that doesn't work again) that would drive me away from the game fast. That practice has increased over time for them (rare in early patches, common now) and appears a slippery slope (you can find similarly increasingly pay-to-win type trends in games like Payday 2, which didn't initially have that).

Any time a player is worse off after a patch, but better of instead with DLC should be a serious red flag to the community. Commend Firaxis for not stooping to this so far, if nothing else. V might have had some pretty rough release play, broken MP and poor UI, but they didn't take stuff away before making a better version in premium content.

I expect that Firaxis similarly won't do it in Civ VI. It was stated that this behavior wouldn't ruin civ VI similarly to other titles that have done it, but I strongly disagree.

 

[Aristos]

Expansions, yes. Zero sum games, NO. Big NO.

Any next version of any series, to remain honest to their long term customer base, must always include the main features of the last complete version. An EXPANSION has to be that: expand on the already existing main features and content, INCLUDING the previous version of the game's franchise.

What they did in Civ 5 is unacceptable: stripping the vanilla version from already well established features (religion, UN/World Congress mechanic, well known civilizations, etc) to only add them later in paid for "expansions" is a NO NO in my dictionary of honesty.

What they are claiming to be doing now (keeping all features from civ 5 Complete for civ 6 vanilla) is the only way to go, and should be the standard. Let us see if they comply.

 

[Aristos]

V might have had some pretty rough release play, broken MP and poor UI, but they didn't take stuff away before making a better version in premium content.

they didn't??? How come my memory tells me otherwise? Vanilla was barebones compared to the final version of BTS, and we only saw the stripped features added later in paid content, as "expansions". Granted, those "expansions" saved the game from the Shafer disaster, but still...

 

[m15a]

they didn't??? How come my memory tells me otherwise?

The quoted post is talking specifically about taking out content in patches. Civ V isn't a patch of Civ IV - it's a separate game.

 

[dexters]

I don't get the impression that it is required a sequel carry forward the previous game's features.
Some things, like Civ selection I understand, but generally, you want to grant some flexibility for the devs. They are building a new game after-all, so requiring all the previous features + new features seems anti-thetical to the experience.


So the promise that they want to bring in most of the BNW features is both bold but could also lead to charges of it being simply an elaborate Civ5 expansion pack and reskin.

Actually, come to think of it, the emphasis on 'rebuilding AI' and 'completely new engine' may speak to the fact that they know people who say exactly that.

 

[Txurce]

I don't get the impression that it is required a sequel carry forward the previous game's features.
Some things, like Civ selection I understand, but generally, you want to grant some flexibility for the devs. They are building a new game after-all, so requiring all the previous features + new features seems anti-thetical to the experience.

So the promise that they want to bring in most of the BNW features is both bold but could also lead to charges of it being simply an elaborate Civ5 expansion pack and reskin.

I had the same thought: that the devs are coming close to making Civ6 seem like a spectacular XP of Civ5, merely by keeping so much of what already works in 5.

As for sequels being required to carry forward the previous game's main features, I can only say 1 upt -- the feature most mentioned by players who prefer Civ5 over Civ4. Like it or not, this kills the rather unimaginative argument for needing to carry over all major aspects of a game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

they didn't??? How come my memory tells me otherwise? Vanilla was barebones compared to the final version of BTS, and we only saw the stripped features added later in paid content, as "expansions". Granted, those "expansions" saved the game from the Shafer disaster, but still...

I'm talking in framework of same game. VI keeping features is a good sign if they can handle them. Expansions will be at least new civ dlc, but they could do corporations in completely new way or modify support units as an expansion, or mess with naval design and abstract the different conditions of naval combat as sea hex terrain etc.

None of the games used patches to remove content or Nerf to sell buff, not even BE.