The lack of a unique model for a unique unit from Great Britain is an embarrassment.

[LunarRepublic]

It doesn't reaaaaallly look like that, though.

The base structure was very monochromatic brick that I think contributes to the deco "carved in stone" aesthetic. By contrast, you can clearly see the wonder model just reused British city assets, which all have that grey framing/moulding on literally everything.

Battersea also has a very deco glass roof covering the entire upper structure, which is totally absent in the wonder model and replaced with crappy greenhouse-style roofs. And, in general, a lot of the additional glasswork on the wings is missing.

Granted, the Byrsa also looks like it was phoned in with reused assets, too.

Just FYI, Battersea is no longer a functioning power station anymore. It was left abandoned and gutted, and then it got converted into a shopping mall (pretty cool one too).

Those crappy greenhouse-style roofs were what existed in the original power station.

 

[Vennlig]

I'm definitely not in the "OMG worst game ever" camp. The game has its issues—some of which really should have been fixed—but I think that such a negative Steam rating is a bit harsh. That said, playing as Britain has definitely soured my experience. I’m not angry, just disappointed I know it’s silly to feel let down—this will be forgotten in a few months, and one bad civ isn’t the end of the world for Civ 7. But sometimes, it just takes one more little thing to push you over the edge.

I wouldn’t mind the missing Unique Unit so much if it felt like Britain had been designed with a truly special identity. But the absence of a UU feels symbolic of the broader issues. I don’t like to criticize the team—I’m sure they’re all incredibly passionate—but this DLC was expensive, and the civ itself feels so uninspired to me. Civ 7 had so much potential to explore unique and creative directions, yet this iteration of Britain feels utterly forgettable, both thematically and mechanically.

What concerns me more is the studio's quality bar—either they genuinely thought this was good enough, or they knew it wasn’t but had to release it anyway. And that’s a worrying sign for the long term. If there hadn’t been backlash, would they have even bothered to change the unit model?

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe I am more particular than the average person about how gfx of a building look, as I have modeled historical buildings in 3d for many years. Imo the Battersea model is very bad. It's like creating a building with a dome and calling it "Hagia Sophia"

Proportion is entirely off. It just also has four chimneys and the likeness generally ends there.

 

[Krajzen]

Replying to the OP, yeah well, here is the moment where my apologetics end and embarrassment begins, I know no precedent to this failure, similarly to the Lovecraftian abomination known as this game's UI

 

[marius_kaparius]

I will use this opportunity to reiterate that the development team is not large enough to keep up with the ambitions of releasing on this many platforms with cross-play. Everything has to be tested so many more times. Is it really worth tanking the game and potentially the franchise?

 

[awpioreubhnfgvv346260]

I will use this opportunity to reiterate that the development team is not large enough to keep up with the ambitions of releasing on this many platforms with cross-play. Everything has to be tested so many more times. Is it really worth tanking the game and potentially the franchise?

I remember browsing these forums before release when a subsection of users were insisting fervently that releasing on multiple platforms wasn't such a big deal and absolutely wouldn't lead to any issues or loss of quality. A lot of these people are now pushing the conspiracy theory that Trump is organising an anti-woke backlash against the game and jeopardising its review scores. It was ever thus.

 

[Uberfrog]

Having seen the Battersea Power wonder construction animation, it’s warmed me to it a bit. There’s a nice little turbine inside. I still think the chimneys are ugly though!

 

[Deggial]

About the 'Revenge': Dissapointing indeed.

The Battersea model, however, is fine; obviously the original looks quite different (now). But...
A) LunarRepublic's entry shows the historical look, which is much closer to Firaxis' interpretation. And ...
B) the rather long power station had to be compressed to fit on one tile. If the proportions had been kept, the individual structures would have been much smaller and the building would have looked out of scale. The model is clearly 'idealised' to fit in. You have to die one death...(I wonder: does this proverb translate to English as intended?)

 

[Maiq]

Replying to the OP, yeah well, here is the moment where my apologetics end and embarrassment begins, I know no precedent to this failure, similarly to the Lovecraftian abomination known as this game's UI

Not bothering to include a model for a UU really feels like they broke a contract with us. This really should be the bare minimum and now you decide to pull this on the DLC that drops a month after release? *insert very bad words here*

 

[queenpea]

Considering the DLC is priced at $30 for four civilizations, we are not off to a good start here.

For a title that has work to do to turn the tide of public opinion, Civ needed a win with these first few DLC drops. I am struggling to see the value in the Crossroads DLC.

 

[Maiq]

Yeah, they needed to nail the DLC if they wanted to be so greedy about them.

 

[queenpea]

Yeah, they needed to nail the DLC if they wanted to be so greedy about them.

I didn’t say “greedy,” but I understand your point. My point is that if you’re going to charge $30 for four civilizations, two leaders (which used to be included with civilizations in past versions, and a few natural wonders), then the value has to be there.

I would expect brand new, beautiful assets for all of the delivered content. Instead, we are where we are.

 

[AD1730]

Considering the DLC is priced at $30 for four civilizations, we are not off to a good start here.

For a title that has work to do to turn the tide of public opinion, Civ needed a win with these first few DLC drops. I am struggling to see the value in the Crossroads DLC.

And this is why the Paradox model is so dangerous. The small DLC packs often aren't worth the money, so a lot of people opt out of getting them. Once one DLC becomes "optional", it becomes easier to opt out of more of the DLC. Then, what happens over the years is that a huge variation in player experience develops based on combination of DLC they've bought.

 

[stealth_nsk]

And this is why the Paradox model is so dangerous. The small DLC packs often aren't worth the money, so a lot of people opt out of getting them. Once one DLC becomes "optional", it becomes easier to opt out of more of the DLC. Then, what happens over the years is that a huge variation in player experience develops based on combination of DLC they've bought.

Paradox model is also bad because, they sell small gameplay DLC, while Firaxis has small DLC with content-only. Also, for big gameplay expansions, Firaxis often includes gameplay changes from the first one to the second, while leaving only content (new civs) with the first. It also helps making experience more robust.

P.S. But I wouldn't call it Paradox model, I'd say Sims popularized it. And it's generally standard for simulators whether they are life sims or historical ones.

 

[queenpea]

P.S. But I wouldn't call it Paradox model, I'd say Sims popularized it. And it's generally standard for simulators whether they are life sims or historical ones.

I abhor EA and what they have done to Maxis, but sadly, there is more value in the $30 you could spend on Sims 4 DLC than here in Crossroads.

 

[Maiq]

I didn’t say “greedy,” but I understand your point. My point is that if you’re going to charge $30 for four civilizations, two leaders (which used to be included with civilizations in past versions, and a few natural wonders), then the value has to be there.

I would expect brand new, beautiful assets for all of the delivered content. Instead, we are where we are.

Sorry, not my intention to put words in your mouth.

 

[user746383]

If a DLC civ is just existing models with a few different bonuses in the config but no real (or limited) new models there's nothing there that any modder can't make very easily by re-skinning existing ones. I'm not really seeing where the value is, or what we're really paying them to deliver. If they sell 300,000 DLCs (and I'm sure they've sold way more than that with this pre-order bundle) then they've made a cool $9,000,000 revenue. How much cost really went into making this? $50,000 if you're generous? That's a >99% profit margin. Seems like there would be enough cushion there on margins like that to pretend they care about things like craftsmanship. You can even triple that investment in care and quality and they are still over 98% profit margin. You can launch a startup on a $150,000 seed.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If a DLC civ is just existing models with a few different bonuses in the config but no real (or limited) new models there's nothing there that any modder can't make very easily by re-skinning existing ones. I'm not really seeing where the value is, or what we're really paying them to deliver. If they sell 300,000 DLCs (and I'm sure they've sold way more than that with this pre-order bundle) then they've made a cool $9,000,000 revenue. How much cost really went into making this? $50,000 if you're generous? That's a >99% profit margin. Seems like there would be enough cushion there on margins like that to pretend they care about things like craftsmanship. You can even triple that investment in care and quality and they are still over 98% profit margin.

1. The DLC contains a lot more than unique military unit model. Even if we speak about GB civ without other parts of DLC, it's background image, music, 2 models for buildings, 1 model for unique civilian units, icons for all this including unique civics, testing and balancing gameplay, etc.
2. DLC cost can't be estimated separately from the rest of the game. Yes, the cost/work ratio for DLC is really different from the base game, but that's because financially that's just cost split and segmentation with base game usually being not profitable by itself, but targeting larger audience, while DLC allows getting more money from people willing to pay extra and bringing the game to profit.

 

[user746383]

$150,000 would get you four solid mid-level devs working hard for three months, in the US at least. Or, a dev and a half dozen artists. I'm quite confident a team like that could make what we got.

Now, whether they need to squeeze us like lemons to get their money back on the game itself it's hard for me to say. Are they really selling Civ7 at a loss to make money on DLC? I sort of doubt it. Did it really cost $70,000,000 to make this game, assuming they sold a million copies at the cheapest tier? Did this game really cost more than something like Wukong?

Either way, you can double the cost a few more times and still have a quite amazing profit margin. And presumably you must agree that even in a crazy world a few hundred thousand more dollars of cost would allow for making a custom battleship model and showing a bit of care for quality and giving the fans something they can love, rather than feel insulted by.

 

[Uberfrog]

I abhor EA and what they have done to Maxis, but sadly, there is more value in the $30 you could spend on Sims 4 DLC than here in Crossroads.

Yeah...

...and anyone who plays The Sims 4 will know how poor a value proposition that is! It's quite sad, really.