Steam "top x" lists aren't very useful. Since Civ is a Steam exclusive, it has an advantage over other PC games. It doesn't factor in people playing in offline mode. Multi-platform games aren't very well represented either since Steam doesn't track all console games.
Speculation: New patch and/or DLC on the 21st of november
- Thread starter anandus
- Start date
Steam "top x" lists aren't very useful. Since Civ is a Steam exclusive, it has an advantage over other PC games. It doesn't factor in people playing in offline mode. Multi-platform games aren't very well represented either since Steam doesn't track all console games.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Still doesn't mean the game isn't profitable or that future additions through steam wouldn't be financially viable given its steam popularity. That post wasn't made in the sense of it being a popularity contest, it was mentioned in the sense of it making good business sense.
Of course, but I had to try.
I hope the new update will fix some issues with the AI and diplomacy. Especially the AI though.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Keeping individuals employed? I would love to see Firaxis payroll, and its records of dates of hiring and firing since the Civilization 5 project had started and all the way to this day.
Of course we will not have that information.
I wouldn't be surprised that most of the money earned have been allocated toward other developers with their own projects.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Well, keep in mind the staff of Firaxis is significantly less than it was when Civ5 began. They had a huge staff cut towards the back half of development. Still, there is no question that they need revenue or else more cuts are made.
Even if you can't place a dollar to dollar comparison between DLC and employment, it is undeniable that financial viability is the incentive to keep working on games. I want them to release another patch for Civ3: Conquests, but they aren't going to since there is no incentive. However, there is an incentive to keep patching Civ5 because it'll keep people playing who can then buy DLC.
Even if you can't place a dollar to dollar comparison between DLC and employment, it is undeniable that financial viability is the incentive to keep working on games. I want them to release another patch for Civ3: Conquests, but they aren't going to since there is no incentive. However, there is an incentive to keep patching Civ5 because it'll keep people playing who can then buy DLC.
New UU`s have been the point of endless debates on the forum, but I have a different suggestion. The UU is based on history, but history doesn`t necessarily repeat itself in CiV. My suggestion is to make some units available upon completing different policies. This will reflect the actual game and not previous history.
For example:
Commerce: Merchant raider/ privateer
Piety: Religious fanatic/ holy warrior / crusader
Tradition (monarchy): Royal Guard
Honour: Mercenary
Liberty: Pioneer (armed settler)
Autocracy: Storm trooper
Freedom: UN Peacekeeper
Yoy get the picture by now, and I`, sure you got even better suggestions than mine
A damn great idea Tantor, never thought of that but it would be supercool!
(I also liked how in Civ3 there were a couple of wonders that gave a special unit, like a Crusading knight that couldnt be built otherwise.)
*****
I'm so pumped up with getting a real expansion that getting "just" a DLC Civ next would almost seem a disappointment to me..
Of couse I welcome all patches and DLC civs with open arms, I just think that a real kick ass expansion that would include new features would be most satistfying for all.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
The problem with your reasoning is that Firaxis have no say on where the money go to. If anything, it is the business of 2K Games to decided where the money go.
So is every single one of the other games in Steam's top 10 a the time of this writing except for Football Manager 2011. So, not really an advantage there.
The current list:
Football Manager 2012
Counter-Strike
Counter-Strike: Source
Team Fortress 2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
Sid Meier's Civilization V
Call of Duty Black Ops - Multiplayer
Dungeon Defenders
Left 4 Dead 2
Football Manager 2011
DLC be damned we need AI fixes. Their incentive needs to be keeping people playing.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
I am close to uninstalling the damn thing. The only reason why I keep it in my computer so that the community here can tell Firaxis to make a damn phone call to 2K Games saying that we need more people and money to fix core issues of the game, instead of churning out meaningless DLCs.
Your very thoughtful. I agree strongly with you. They should have spent their efforts early on fixing the game. So many more people would have been playing it, most reverted back to Civ 3 or 4, probably at least half of the potential civ gamers went back to 4. I was thinking of going back to 4 and work on a game that is at least moddable. Modding was a lot of fun back a few years ago. If they do not fix CiV this time around, they never will until the dll is released and the modders do it for them. In that case I'll try playing it again at that point. Hopefully they have a good patch come out that deals with the issues in the game, bugs, AI, diplomacy, AI naval combat, etc etc etc. DLC should be secondary, unless it adds new concepts or elements to the game. After that, then they can work on some more scenarios.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
And tell me exactly how a graphics artist can fix the AI? [ETA: If you want DLC to add new concepts, you realize that will divert programmers who could be working on patching and would especially be a distraction for AI programmers. That's not very consistent]
And DLC ensures they keep that incentive. I agree they also just want to produce a good game so they do want people to be consistently playing, but you can't run a financial model based around good feelings.
Mister the DLC is not incentive, an expansion might be. We have seen enough lame DLCs. BTW where do you get graphics artist from DLC be damned we need AI fixes?
You mean a computer programmer?
The foundation of the game is broken, fix the AI, diplomacy, bugs etc. (Who builds a house without a good foundation, do you understand that concept?)Then patch it if there are still issues, and finally worry about DLC and new civs scenarios. They won't do any of this. It will be a crappy patch and a DLC with the same lame stupid AI and diplomacy. Watch and see.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Do you know what incentive means? An economic incentive for the corporations known as Firaxis and 2K Games. Not some kind of incentive for the player, I don't know how that's relevant. An expansion is an incentive to keep patching as well, but it's a higher risk. It could backfire. It would also devote significant programming resources from patches to the expansion.
I'm pointing out that DLC does not slow down the patching process in the slightest. The primary work is done by graphics artists. You realize they can't contribute to patches, right?
I'm pointing out that DLC does not slow down the patching process in the slightest. The primary work is done by graphics artists. You realize they can't contribute to patches, right?
Firaxis and 2K has programmers as well. Get your head out of the sand man. I don't care about corporate incentive. Corporate incentive be damned. Myself and many others have spent a lot on this dead game. I have been loyal to civilization games for twenty years. However, I want a game that is playable, which is being evolved to become even better. I am not interested in putting money in peoples pockets who are solely interested in corporate incentive. 2K and Firaxis need to get to work and fix this damn game. I am sick of saying it, me and tons of others who play the game would like an AI who does not act like a chicken with its head cut off. BTW who in the world ever sticks up for corporations? I can't believe you are! It is absolutely amazing. Here they are ripping us off and you stick up for them. Its insane.
Moderator Action: Please inject more civility into your posts. This tone isn't conducive to a civil discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Soryn Arkayn
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 313
The distraction was always been CivWorld, the lame Facebook Civilization game that no self-respecting Civ veteran would ever waste their time with. That's the only possible explanation I can think of for why Firaxis hasn't released an expansion to Civ5 by now, more than a year after the game's release. It's overdue, and considering that Firaxis hasn't even announced an expansion yet, there's no reason to assume that it'll be released in the near-future (6-12 months).
The DLC that has been released thus far has been neither quantitatively nor qualitatively enough to preoccupy Firaxis from releasing an expansion. The 6 Civ and Scenario packs, the Multiplayer Map pack, and the Ancient Wonders Scenario pack could've been and probably were completed prior to Civ5's release, and were intentionally withheld for DLC. Considering that the Mod community has developed content that dwarfs the official DLC proves that Firaxis isn't putting significant resources into developing new DLC for Civ5. Nor is Firaxis assigning adequate resources into updating Civ5. Support for Civ5 is obviously under-staffed because Firaxis is busy with other projects, namely CivWorld.
I don't know or care why CivWorld, a free-to-play Facebook bastardization of the revered Civilization franchise, takes priority over Civilization 5 -- but it's WRONG! Firaxis needs to quit panning for fool's gold on Facebook, get their heads out of their @$$es, and recognize that they're taking their loyal fans for granted, and we're getting p!ssed off by the lack of support for their game. Players like me are ready, willing, and eager to pay $30-40 for a proper expansion pack for Civ5. So WTH is the problem? Does Firaxis not want my money? Would they prefer I go waste it on Battlefield 3 or Modern Warfare 3 instead?
The DLC that has been released thus far has been neither quantitatively nor qualitatively enough to preoccupy Firaxis from releasing an expansion. The 6 Civ and Scenario packs, the Multiplayer Map pack, and the Ancient Wonders Scenario pack could've been and probably were completed prior to Civ5's release, and were intentionally withheld for DLC. Considering that the Mod community has developed content that dwarfs the official DLC proves that Firaxis isn't putting significant resources into developing new DLC for Civ5. Nor is Firaxis assigning adequate resources into updating Civ5. Support for Civ5 is obviously under-staffed because Firaxis is busy with other projects, namely CivWorld.
I don't know or care why CivWorld, a free-to-play Facebook bastardization of the revered Civilization franchise, takes priority over Civilization 5 -- but it's WRONG! Firaxis needs to quit panning for fool's gold on Facebook, get their heads out of their @$$es, and recognize that they're taking their loyal fans for granted, and we're getting p!ssed off by the lack of support for their game. Players like me are ready, willing, and eager to pay $30-40 for a proper expansion pack for Civ5. So WTH is the problem? Does Firaxis not want my money? Would they prefer I go waste it on Battlefield 3 or Modern Warfare 3 instead?
Yeah your 30 bucks and everyone else like us amounts to chump change considering how much time they need to invest in this to make drastic but direly needed improvements. They don't give a <snip> about loyal customers that don't contribute to the bottom line like they used to. In this economy, it's about maximizing profits. If it weren't, they wouldn't have released such an incomplete game.
Moderator Action: Asterisks don't mitigate the inappropriate language rules when the meaning is still discernible.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Soryn Arkayn
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 313
What's baffling is that Firaxis would waste so much time, resources, and money in developing CivWorld, which is a free-to-play Facebook game.
I have no idea if or how CivWorld is monetized and I don't care. It was a terrible idea and a spit in the face to loyal Civ fans.
Firaxis would've made a lot more money if they had focused on producing more DLC and releasing an expansion game for Civ5. That's what we wanted and were willing to pay for. So WTH were they thinking?
"Instead of producing new content with minimal effort and selling it to our millions of loyal fans for an exorbitant profit, let's focus all of our efforts to develop a totally unnecessary bastardization of our critically acclaimed but overly complex turn-based strategy game and provide it free to an entirely different demographic who spend all day smearing <snip> on their friends' walls and playing Farmville and Yahtzee. That's the future. That's how we'll be successful!" - Firaxis
Morons.Moderator Action: You evidently saw the warning above, and chose to ignore it. Don't in future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
seasnake
Conquistador
The DLC arguments are baffling. You don't have to buy it, why does it hurt to have it? Tropico 4 just released their DLC, and I'm not buying it. It's five dollars for decorations and a gimmicky building that basically does what a currently-existing building already does. It will not hurt me to forego it.
The Civ V DLCs are completely optional, doesn't hurt to buy them, and they add a lot of replay value. I agree the game could use improvement, I especially want more to do in the modern era and better AI and some balance. I think those things will come, and I really like how dedicated the patches have been as well as the content of the DLCs.
And yes, I defend corporations. They employ people, and make products that create jobs. How many people have jobs because Microsoft exists, including the people who design the products, make them, machine the parts, build the machines that machine the parts, ship them, sell the finished products in stores, and all of those tech support people in India.
The Civ V DLCs are completely optional, doesn't hurt to buy them, and they add a lot of replay value. I agree the game could use improvement, I especially want more to do in the modern era and better AI and some balance. I think those things will come, and I really like how dedicated the patches have been as well as the content of the DLCs.
And yes, I defend corporations. They employ people, and make products that create jobs. How many people have jobs because Microsoft exists, including the people who design the products, make them, machine the parts, build the machines that machine the parts, ship them, sell the finished products in stores, and all of those tech support people in India.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Two separate development teams to be fair. Is it possible they could have loaned people to work on Civ5 instead? Probably. But most game studios like to have more than one product at a time. Firaxis tends to put all their eggs in one basket, so it does not hurt to have a back up plan.
Well, 2K doesn't, but that's precisely my point. Firaxis has programmers and they are working on patches. They would be only minimally involved in DLC. It's the graphic artists that do most of that work.
You do realize that Firaxis has employees that work for salaries paid for by a corporation that is designed to make a profit and, if they fail to make a profit will go bankrupt and cease to exist, right?
So the question is, what's the best use of your limited resources to ensure you stay in existence. One option involves making no money (actually, it involves losing money, since you still have to pay people). You can do this option, but you also need another option that gains revenue or you go until you run out of money from the previous game release and move on to another project. They've chosen to continue to gain revenue rather than move on early. DLC lets them patch for longer periods of time, not fewer.
Similar threads
