Sid Meier's Civilization VII : GaaS.

[Naokaukodem]

Civ7 looks like nothing but a Game As A Service. I'm already disgusted by their initial release policy (general feeling, not FOMO), and it seems there's more DLCs to come, on a regular basis.

I know some players may like it, but IMHO it just maintains an artificial attention to the game, totally disconnected with the gameplay and what the actual game is all about.

It's mostly the FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) that acts here than a goundbreaking game that contents everyone, or mostly. Well, it may content only the fanatics, but I don't have a high opinion of this word prime signification.

What do you think ?

P.-S. : You can try all you want to prove me Civ7 is not a GaaS, trust me it has enough stigmata of it for me.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If it is, then so were Civ 6 and Civ 5.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Contextual image is helpful:

I don't think you are wrong, per say, that they are moving in a GaaS direction with Civ7. I also don't think there's anything inherently bad about GaaS.

A better question is: Is there enough Game without the Service?

The Service part is split - as is standard - into free and paid stuff. So a further question is: if you decide to participate in the Service, is the free part worth having on its own?

Honestly...we'll just have to see. Fortunately the Game is nearly here, so we'll all be able to start judging the Game without the Service very soon. It looks like next month the Service kicks off, so we'll get to see what that looks like then.

 

[Sagax]

Civ6 looks like nothing but a Game As A Service. I'm already disgusted by their initial release policy (general feeling, not FOMO), and it seems there's more DLCs to come, on a regular basis.

I know some players may like it, but IMHO it just maintains an artificial attention to the game, totally disconnected with the gameplay and what the actual game is all about.

It's mostly the FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) that acts here than a goundbreaking game that contents everyone, or mostly. Well, it may content only the fanatics, but I don't have a high opinion of this word prime signification.

What do you think ?

P.-S. : You can try all you want to prove me Civ6 is not a GaaS, trust me it has enough stigmata of it for me.

Civ5 looks like nothing but a Game As A Service. I'm already disgusted by their initial release policy (general feeling, not FOMO), and it seems there's more DLCs to come, on a regular basis.

I know some players may like it, but IMHO it just maintains an artificial attention to the game, totally disconnected with the gameplay and what the actual game is all about.

It's mostly the FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) that acts here than a goundbreaking game that contents everyone, or mostly. Well, it may content only the fanatics, but I don't have a high opinion of this word prime signification.

What do you think ?

P.-S. : You can try all you want to prove me Civ5 is not a GaaS, trust me it has enough stigmata of it for me.

Like, I get it, but also feel like this topic is two decades late.

 

[ehecatzin]

They aren't doing anything radically different than both civ V and VI, and that includes the early DLC a month or two after release. Could the new model for civs and leaders incentivize even more DLC a la Paradox? It doesn't look like that from the roadmap.

later on? who knows, maybe.

 

[Haig]

I think you are wrong, the game seems deep and made with love and attention to detail and it tries to tackle some of the faults that have been in previous entries of the series.

It also brings some bold new ideas. I especially like the diplomacy system.

Of course the publisher wants to make money and sell dlc stuff, and Firaxis people need a salary to work and live.

I see nothing strange here.

 

[rocksinmypath]

The commercial landscape is a compromise between producers and consumers. Many gamers are unwilling to pay upwards of $100 for games they might not enjoy at all and be unable to get a refund for. Given that price ceiling, there's only so much content developers can provide unless they love losing money. Realistically, what you're asking for is the game to be smaller in scale and/or its release to be delayed. If it was up to me, I'd push for a pricing model closer to the subscription model commonly seen in aaS businesses. Give players two options: buy the game outright at a discount, or pay monthly instalments either until some fixed date after which you fully own the game or until you decide you don't want to keep playing.

 

[StargazingDog]

I was just thinking about this. I'd vastly prefer they trickle out new content than release "expansions". Just release packs that add new civs, leaders, game modes, whatever. Forgo the major expansions that bundle a bunch of major changes. Release a "religion pack" or "climate change" pack, etc instead.

 

[AlexByrde]

What do you think you're going get FOMO for? The Natural Wonder Battle event? I'd be shocked if anyone picks up the game for that.

Just wait to get DLC until you need to spice up the base game on your schedule, you're not gonna miss anything. Hell, you'll probably get it at a steep discount if you're patient enough.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I mean, 2K has outright said that they want to adopt the GaaS model more. And Civ 7 does reflect that imperative to an extent.

But is that really a bad thing? You can buy the extras (and that's what they are, extras) to customize your game experience in an a la carte fashion. Just don't buy what you don't want. (And if you're going to say that they intentionally cut content from the base game in order to sell it piecemeal, just don't. That's a cynical myth.)

Now, are they being predatory about packaging it? Just a bit, maybe. I think it's a bit underhanded to fluff up the deluxe and founders editions with silly cosmetics. But again, weigh its value to you. Don't buy what you don't want.

 

[friendlysavage]

I only buy games that seem worth my money. Highly recommend this strategy to others

 

[Lorizael]

P.-S. : You can try all you want to prove me Civ7 is not a GaaS, trust me it has enough stigmata of it for me.

So then what exactly are we doing here?

 

[Gen.Washington]

Instead of complaining I wish everyone with these issues just wouldn’t buy it. That’s would (a.) actually achieve something and (b.) leave the rest of us in peace to enjoy the game.

Civ 7 is no more predatory than Civ 5 and Civ 6. Both games were more than worth the money in the end for the “complete” experience.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

I only buy games that seem worth my money. Highly recommend this strategy to others

Exactly that!

130€ for founder's edition which includes the DLC coming the first year, so we're talking about 60€ of DLCs
Let's expect they keep the same pace of 2 DLC packs per year for about 60€/year
Let's assume the game lives for 8 years like Civ6 before they move over to the next
We're looking at a total price over 600€. Yes, we're into Paradox territory here

I have over 2000h in Civ6, over 3000 in Civ5. Let's be conservative and consider 2000h for Civ7 : that's about 30 cents per hour!
A film at the local cinema is about 20€, let's consider it's good 2h film and we're talking 10€/hour!

Yes, totally worth my money

The price of just about everything went crazy over the last decade and video games are no exception. We can no longer expect AAA games around the 40€ mark, that's now a price you'll see on some indie games (not the tiny indie games you'll complete in a 5-6h play-through, but more ambitious indie games are sometimes approaching this price). Am i happy with that? No, of course not! But even thought the price is pretty steep, i will get my money's worth of entertainment with Civ7.

Of course, those who don't plan on playing as much won't see the same value, so ultimately it's up to everyone to decide whether or not a game is worth their money, but there are quite a few here who think that Civ7 will be worth their money despite the price.

Back to counting hours until the game is released in advanced access tomorrow

 

[Naokaukodem]

If it is, then so were Civ 6 and Civ 5.

Civ6 TOWARDS THE END ? Definitely. Civ5 was not obvious. (past the traditional 2 expansion packs) But there it's not even out yet that there is a ton of different offers we don't even know what are their value.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

The closest Civ has ever got to true GaaS is the NFP for VI. I'd suggest we're likely to get something similar for VII at some point, but as yet that is pure speculation.

 

[notNamed]

The closest Civ has ever got to true GaaS is the NFP for VI. I'd suggest we're likely to get something similar for VII at some point, but as yet that is pure speculation.

But that's literally what Right to Rule (and the other monthly release DLC season passes which will follow after it) is.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I still stand by the pricing and amount of planned DLC being pretty egregious. I don't care about DLC and will happily pay for more content if a game is good enough but essentially doubling the base price for only a small handful of leaders and civs seems a bit much

 

[GeneralZIft]

I don't 100% agree with OP, but I'm not sure why people religiously defend video game developers and publishers for basically anything and everything.
I get that the forum name is 'Civfanatics' but I don't assume you guys are 'Civcultists'
It reminds me of Pokemon fans, when they release the latest games half-baked and without all the Pokemon (like they used to), and with less quality, people still latch onto the new and improved aspects, and ignore the aspects that were sort of neglected.

In this case, Civ7 lands in a poorly polished state in terms of gameplay specifically - that's the Balancing and UI aspects most of all - plus missing main-stay Leaders and Civilisations and generally suspicious monetization strategy.
But they have good solutions to a lot of issues with previous games. That's good, but why can't they take the time to fully bake the product?

Earlier poster had a good point with Civ5 and Civ6. I remember Civ6 on release being absolute ass, and I'm not talking about the art style, I'm talking about this dragging gameplay...
I was lucky not to play Civ5 at release, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was terrible too.

Where am I going with my point? I think that every single important gameplay change surrounds their main monetization strategy at the core, rather than the other way around.
I could go into more detail why I think this way but ultimately it feels deflating.
Ultimately, it feels like 2K's greedy grubby paws is going to tear the series apart one day, but Firaxis does such a good job of making it palatable for consumers.

When I read back my own post, I feel like I'm that guy who rains on everyone's parade. I hope that I'm not that case, but I'm trying to make the argument that the series could be more and should be more, and they have that capacity, so I hope with 100% of my heart that they take on the challenge of making it as good as it can be and avoid the pitfalls of greed wherever possible.

 

[lo24681]

I don't think you are raining on anyone's parade, but tbh I don't think anyone is. People are just sharing their opinions, which happen to be very diverse, for example I will share mine that I generally thought Civ 6 at launch was a lot of fun, different then yours but I still feel you are entirely valid to have the one you have.