The hate for Civ7 will end the series, if not soon then eventually

[Gorbles]

I don't see it that way. The pace of fixing things is glacially slow. Like, no one more turn button yet, no re-naming cities at launch? How on Earth was there "no time" to include that stuff at launch?

How can either of us answer that question?

But, to me, the pace is actually pretty fast. I didn't expect the number of patches we've seen in the weeks and months following release. What large studios patch a cross-platform game multiple times in a month or so? Age of Empires IV didn't see this (quite the opposite, in fact). I don't buy a lot of games these days (certainly not on release), so that's my off-the-cuff example.

Why do you think it's so slow? Is it because we've seen modders experiment with all sorts of neat things, and therefore developers should be able to go faster? Is it your own experience? I'm guessing here - not trying to put words in your mouth.

In the case of one more turn, they're obviously reserving that to hype up a later patch so it seems like a bigger deal and generates buzz.

This feels both very uncharitable and completely speculative.

I don't think moving Right to Rule back is "prioritizing". I think it's them needing to let quarterly results process so executives can make decisions on stuff. In some ways, not releasing Right to Rule early is false advertising, since many people already paid for it. To be fair, they didn't announce exactly when it would release.

Interesting.

So you'd be happier if they released more paid DLC when they originally stated it would be released, even if that meant that the post-launch support timeline suffered for it. Because I think that's the thing folks don't understand. People think it's ready to go. In some cases, that this was content cut out of the main release, to be sold, intentionally.

What if that isn't the case? What if they're still working on it, and it wasn't ready at launch (like most post-launch DLC)? How can we know which is which?

It's just, these bare bones civs that ship with additional bugs than what there were at the start can't possibly take so long to program.

Why not?

That's a good question. I wouldn't believe that that's true unless the publisher meddling was insanely chaotic, with one demand one month and a new demand the next.

Typically, "publisher meddling" deals with rushed release, predatory pricing. Well, they had 7 years so I can't believe they didn't have enough development time from the publisher side of things. I mean, there was no ability to rename your cities at launch! That can't be the publisher rushing them with 7 years of dev time.

Why not? We had Covid in the middle. Firaxis had layoffs in that same time (most of the industry did, and Firaxis lasted a long time to avoid them compared to many I know).

I guess I'm asking the same question a lot - sorry about that.

The Glassdoor post is actual evidence.

Glassdoor is infamously, regularly, not evidence. It can be, it also isn't necessarily factual. One of the reasons I don't use it myself (that said, I barely tolerate LinkedIn, so).

But regardless, the thought experiment were if evidence were forthcoming, a la a well-researched piece from Schreier or the like. So you should bake that assumption into the answer.

 

[tman2000]

Why I keep thinking about Sukritract every time I read something about the community...
It was him that released Syracuse civ for Civ V mod with Archimedes as its leader?
I think he could definitely put down some initial guidelines but carte blanche and money on the same line... mmmhhh...

They would have to make a couple in house mods to try out the modding tools and make sure they work and show what might be done with them. If they release asset packs, they should have civs to go with them.

It's not that hard to throw together a civ in the 7 model. Especially if there's a graphics design team that can throw together your icons in half an afternoon. Even unique models are easy enough as long as you're recombining existing assets.

In fact, if I were them I'd lock the community out of building 3D models and assets, but let them control almost everything else about the game, but allow you to mix and match all assets you've purchased.

 

[tman2000]

Why do you think it's so slow?

It's just, how could city renaming not have been at launch. They had time to produce an entire Puddington trailer in the time it take to add that. It should have been in at launch. They clearly recognized the community missed it, so then it should have been an easy hot fix. Obviously they want to use "fixing" the game as a marketing tactic as if they're adding value by correcting mistakes. Very very poor optics.

So you'd be happier if they released more paid DLC when they originally stated it would be released, even if that meant that the post-launch support timeline suffered for it. Because I think that's the thing folks don't understand. People think it's ready to go. In some cases, that this was content cut out of the main release, to be sold, intentionally.

It would have been nice if the game was actually finished at launch so they don't have to prioritize actually finishing it.

Why not? We had Covid in the middle. Firaxis had layoffs in that same time (most of the industry did, and Firaxis lasted a long time to avoid them compared to many I know).

Well, then that might be the story of what went wrong. Have yet to see any evidence or discussion whatsoever of how those factors end up giving us a game without renamable cities.

You know what's weird about the Puddington trailer? I can believe they have a contract with video production studio and contracted post-launch ads ahead of time as part of their post-launch hype cadence. I can believe that the city banner naming was what they were working on when that first ad order came up so they added the Puddington concept. It could even be that the marketing agency asked them what features they were adding and that was on the list and they rolled with it.

However, it is suspicious. Like, could they have planned on adding city banner naming late, before launch even happened?

The point is that they're kind of in a position where everything they do is wrong. It's hard not to interpret their actions as cynical. It's tone related. They're not in a position to hype and celebrate patches no matter how much they pay YouTubers off. They're in a place where they need to offer apologies, explanations and a way forward. Then they can celebrate patches and fixes a little more low key.

I think probably there's a business decision to stay hype oriented for the entire first quarter after launch to stay in line with the frequent DLC release pricing plan they had. Now that the quarter is closing, they will formally shift to whatever the new business strategy is. So I'll give Firaxis the benefit of the doubt that corporate moves a bit glacially and we're not going to see a more reasonable direction or pathway for the game until a lot of discussions are had this next quarter.

 

[tman2000]

And also it hasn't been released any spectator mode that allows the making of Ai vs Ai video so people can actually see and understand
what this is really about...

No spectator mode. No hotseat. No city renaming. No one more turn button. No map larger than standard size. Broken civ unlocks. A UI that looks like a student made it for an android tablet.

Like, what is this? It's not just a misfiring design vision, it's like they barely had time to finish a barely working game. These are basic features. They're not that hard to implement. It's like the story of the rock stars and the brown M&Ms. Sure these seem like small details but if you didn't have the time or ability to get your basic feature suite into a full-fledged release what are you doing?

I know my tone is critical, and I know I've made this point again and again, but my chief sentiment is incredulity. Curiosity. Like, what went so wrong?

 

[Gorbles]

Especially if there's a graphics design team that can throw together your icons in half an afternoon.

I think you and I have very different expectations when it comes to timelines. There are probably very valid reasons for that! But I don't really know how to explore it without thoroughly committing to a derail.

It's just, how could city renaming not have been at launch.

Quite easily. Other stuff needed to be in more.

I hope you don't think I think the game was in a good shape at launch. I don't think it should've released in the state that it did. But we live in a society where everything has a set budget and investors want to make a return on it. Everything, ultimately, is a compromise between vision and reality (this is why product management is a good thing to have, as controversial as it might be for a senior developer to say that ).

They had time to produce an entire Puddington trailer in the time it take to add that.

Firaxis produced the Puddington trailer? Gameplay programmers produced the Puddington trailer? Or are you saying that the entire project timeline should've been reconfigured so that extra programming resource should've been paid for upfront at the cost of eventual marketing (which looks like it was done by a third-party, or 2K at the very least - speculating here of course).

It would have been nice if the game was actually finished at launch so they don't have to prioritize actually finishing it.

Sure, but that wasn't my argument, nor does it answer my question.

Well, then that might be the story of what went wrong. Have yet to see any evidence or discussion whatsoever of how those factors end up giving us a game without renamable cities.

We're not going to have the evidence. If evidence it what drives you, then I understand. But at the same time I caution you against believing in speculative rumour-mill stuff as evidence. It isn't.

However, it is suspicious. Like, could they have planned on adding city banner naming late, before launch even happened?

I think, for all the criticism of the developer that I feel is unfounded, that they were somehow blind to at least some of the shortcomings of the game would be very foolish indeed. But again, not something I or anyone can really provide evidence for.

So yes, they will have been planning for post-launch before the launch of the game. They would've known what they had to cut, they would've prioritised this internally and revised again based on community sentiment post-launch. At least, that's how I'd handle something being pushed out early without features I knew fans would immediately recognise as missing.

The point is that they're kind of in a position where everything they do is wrong. It's hard not to interpret their actions as cynical. It's tone related. They're not in a position to hype and celebrate patches no matter how much they pay YouTubers off. They're in a place where they need to offer apologies, explanations and a way forward. Then they can celebrate patches and fixes a little more low key.

I don't think expecting developers to act publicly in any manner except that which the publisher dictates is . . . shortsighted, really. Marketing is always about the hype, position or not. Contrition has already happened, around the recognition of the response to the UI, and their commitment to improving it (which we've already seen several concrete examples of). We know more improvements are coming (as per the roadmap).

The question here doesn't really seem to be about what position they're in, it's your value judgement about how sorry you think they should be. Maybe they are, internally. Maybe they aren't. I believe they wouldn't be allowed to communicate it either way.

I can feel ten ways from Sunday about what my company is doing with my product. I'm still going to get canned, well over a decade of service or not, if I start saying what I think publicly, without having run it by folks for tone and content. And I'm (personally) allowed a great deal of latitude. A lot of our customers know me, personally, (despite the fact I technically don't have a customer-facing role). There's an element of trust there (and SaaS is different to video games r.e. consumerism - the dynamic between vendor and client is inherently different). Firaxis putting out any statement will be taken very differently from me, personally, saying something in a blog post, or in a customer meeting.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

In fact, if I were them I'd lock the community out of building 3D models and assets, but let them control almost everything else about the game, but allow you to mix and match all assets you've purchased.

So it's a sort of middle ground, more like a big battlefield, because once out, these assets will be shared between members presumably.
It's a limiting factor pushing a pricetag for some assets that are already in the game, unless these assets are not in the game... yet...
In both cases it would divide the modding community. But it's better than nothing. I kind of get it now.

 

[tman2000]

I don't think expecting developers to act publicly in any manner except that which the publisher dictates is . . . shortsighted, really. Marketing is always about the hype, position or not. Contrition has already happened, around the recognition of the response to the UI, and their commitment to improving it (which we've already seen several concrete examples of). We know more improvements are coming (as per the roadmap).

I appreciate the engagement and the conversation, but I'm starting to feel a bit like I'm being steered. I don't expect the devs personally to apologize. I expect the company to apologize for a less-than-ideal development as a necessary marketing move. I get that may not have been clear.

 

[Gorbles]

I appreciate the engagement and the conversation, but I'm starting to feel a bit like I'm being steered. I don't expect the devs personally to apologize. I expect the company to apologize for a less-than-ideal development as a necessary marketing move. I get that may not have been clear.

My bad - I use developer and company interchangeably. Firaxis are the developer, and the developers, personally. 2K is a semi-separate entity with bearing on the former. Regardless of me agreeing or disagreeing, I simply don't think 2K would enable that kind of marketing.

 

[Civinator]

The Glassdoor post is actual evidence.

Can anybody please give a link to that Glassdoor post ?

 

[tman2000]

Can anybody please give a link to that Glassdoor post ?

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Firaxis-Games-E260324-RVW95876271.htm#

If you can glean insights from it beyond what we know that would be great. Just don’t discuss any names of people involved as a privacy issue.

 

[Civinator]

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Firaxis-Games-E260324-RVW95876271.htm#

If you can glean insights from it beyond what we know that would be great. Just don’t discuss any names of people involved as a privacy issue.

Thank you very much!

Edit: I don´t want to answer the questions on that side and I am not fitting into that system of questions, so unfortunately I stay stupid - but at least now I know what kind of post this is.

Edit2: With the glimpse I had at that post, I now can see your post here with other eyes.

 

[Skojardu]

No. People are under no obligation to give money to someone else to try something that they are fairly certain that they will not enjoy. This is particularly true with Civ 7's price tag.

I would have bought if they offered a demo. I can't assume I will be able to make up my mind in under 2 hrs (Steam review regulation)

 

[Naokaukodem]

Can anybody please give a link to that Glassdoor post ?

I clicked the link and it worked, but strangely when I want to see the 34 or 37 other reviews it says there is 0-0 out of 0.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

I just wanted to say that this may be the greatest post I've ever read on these forums. I love the theory that the senior devs got so tripped out on an away day they forced a redesign that ruined the game, and I also love that we don't really have a better explanation for what we're seeing.

So regardless of reality this is my new headcanon. I will not be convinced that this didn't happen - it's the only thing that makes sense any more about this game to me

I’m in total agreement - this was one hell of a post

 

[Askia Muhammad]

I would have bought if they offered a demo. I can't assume I will be able to make up my mind in under 2 hrs (Steam review regulation)

Didn’t Civ 6 also release with a demo? Or am I misremembering ?!

 

[sixty4half]

So we're a rumor mongering forum now?!? WTH did i just read?

 

[CliffCo]

To me there’s far too much negativity towards Civ7 both here and on Reddit. I played over 4,000 hrs on Civ6 in just 4 yrs but when I took a break from playing Civ7 for a while until some patches were released, I tried going back to Civ6 but I couldn’t get back into it and preferred to play Civ7 even with some of the bugs. It’s got a lot better on PC since the 1.2.0 patch and I’m loving the new mechanics. I’m not saying the game is perfect yet but I don’t agree with some of the negativity surrounding it.

 

[MutilationWave]

@tman2000 and @Gorbles

I really enjoyed reading your guys' back and forth. T I generally disagree with you pretty consistently but that has changed with these posts. G I generally agree with you and that has not changed.

I don't know what to think about the ayahuasca story but props to you T for understanding psychedelics.

All I really have to add isn't much. I bought founder's edition because civ is one of the best series of games and I love them all in one way or another.

I would not personally feel betrayed if they offered a 30% discount tomorrow. They have to get players to pay devs to make patches and expansions, and that is my chief concern.

I do believe something terrible happened to cause the game to come out like this after seven years. Even though I love playing it, I'd be lying if I didn't say it is deeply flawed. But not unfixable.

Not sure what I'm really trying to say here but thank you and everyone else who participated for a pretty good, respectful debate.

 

[0urBall]

Just to play devil's advocate on the city naming for a bit, I think Firaxis thought that it would be so minor that people wouldn't notice it was gone, as well as being a device to "show off" the civ switching. As you would have 1/3 of your cities with different names for each civ you switch to by Modern era. That they were able to release the functionality so quickly after launch could suggest that they always knew how to put it in, and just decided not to, rather than forgot/ran out of time to add it. An honest, if silly, mistake as it just added to the list of underbaked items people felt were lacking in CivVII

 

[evonannoredars]

Just to play devil's advocate on the city naming for a bit, I think Firaxis thought that it would be so minor that people wouldn't notice it was gone, as well as being a device to "show off" the civ switching. As you would have 1/3 of your cities with different names for each civ you switch to by Modern era. That they were able to release the functionality so quickly after launch could suggest that they always knew how to put it in, and just decided not to, rather than forgot/ran out of time to add it. An honest, if silly, mistake as it just added to the list of underbaked items people felt were lacking in CivVII

Two months after release feels like quite a while. If it was only a few things missing, it could've been an honest mistake, but considering the sheer number of other basic QoL features and UI polishes that were added later/are yet to be added, I think the 'released before it was ready' scenario seems more likely.

The content updates are interesting though. Previously, from what I can tell, civ games released with everything in it, with only minor additions in later updates. The content updates of Civ 7 are much larger in comparison, but they feel more like stuff they planned to add but didn't have time rather than ideas they came up with post-release (although the resources seem like a bit of both imo).