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

[stealth_nsk]

$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?

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.

This calculation has so many things missed... Let's start from Steam commission of 30% (Playstation gets the same). Throw on top marketing expenses, which could be more than the development budget these days. Add expenses for office, devices and the like. Throw in more people, like testers, writers, translators, music composers, voice actors, etc. Put on top taxes.

And that's just broad strokes.

 

[user746383]

Wow yeah when you put it that way I guess we're getting what we deserve with this DLC.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Wow yeah when you put it that way I guess we're getting what we deserve with this DLC.

To be fair - my point is that lack of unique model on DLC release is a big miss for Firaxis, and I'm afraid it could be a sign of some significant problems with their staff or contractors. But the DLC model itself seems ok.

 

[user746383]

I wasn't trying to say the DLC model wasn't okay for them? I was saying it's basically a money printer especially if people are willing to put up with extremely low quality, to the extent that surely there's enough profit margin there that they could invest a bit more compared to the quality we're getting. This would be an independent fact from if they have people problems or not, which I have no idea about and not really sure how I would be able to tell from the outside.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I wasn't trying to say the DLC model wasn't okay for them? I was saying it's basically a money printer especially if people are willing to put up with extremely low quality, to the extent that surely there's enough profit margin there that they could invest a bit more compared to the quality we're getting. This would be an independent fact from if they have people problems or not, which I have no idea about and not really sure how I would be able to tell from the outside.

I wouldn't use the term "money printer". There are no super profits on highly competitive markets and the things which initially could look like extra money, quickly become the minimum to survive. DLC models is quite old by now, and I'm pretty sure you can't fund the game like civ without it or other, worse, tricks.

 

[fantsu]

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.

EA back in the day was so good. Dont know what happened. Like Sid Meiers/Firaxis games they had.
I think Firaxis has changed like the rest, EA included. I find it bit silly to blame EA after all these years. Maybe ten years ago it was still popular opinion.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

That's probably it. 2k probably wanted to screw them out of their launch bonuses, so probably fired them 10 months early or whatever the contract is. And they're under hard NDA.

I think this is why there used to be a whole, pretty good UI in the preview videos. There was probably some contract reason why they couldn't use it by firing the person out of their bonus, so they likely hired an outsourcing studio to throw something together at the last minute.

interesting theory. im an attorney and can confirm companies (especially companies like 2k) are fond of this kind of maneuver.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

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?

this nails it on the head. the real issue here is how painfully dull the design of a PAID DLC civ for 30 bucks. no uniqueness. no indication that you are playing GB. the biggest let down of any civilization yet released. they could have had some great mechanics with distant lands, espionage, some type of unique economic victory. instead they are totally forgettable.

 

[Mudkip1001]

Just to Preface, I'm arguing for the sake of arguing

$150,000 would get you four solid mid-level devs working hard for three months, in the US at least.

I feel like that wouldn't be enough in Baltimore, Maryland / DC Area, given how expensive it was to live there, rent, and how much competition for computer engineers and the like with the addition of Google, Apple, Amazon, Govt Contractors etc to the area ; Like why would you work at Firaxis if they had a crunch culture? (then everyone can whinge that Firaxis is like Blizzard)...

(I know this is highly tangential and inmaterial but I felt the need to mention it )

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

Throwing money at technical debt / Time Crunch probably doesn't really change anything if there was already a crunch culture at Firaxis (which I hope there isn't). Ideally, yes they would've had this done ; but I can't imagine that it is easy to code/make a game that works across Consoles and PC and have a higher required level of detail and animation than what was needed for Civ 6 and 5...

 

[chrisgatt7]

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?)

I’m less mad about this. The UU Revenge Battleship pisses me off. It’s not even close

 

[Calico Jack]

This will continue to happen as you continue to fork over money for unfinished products.

 

[Piranga]

Shame shame shame *rings bells*

 

[ombak]

Most of the speculation on the lack of a unique model has assumed a lot of intention or lack of care with that specific DLC. Don't get me wrong, it is a problem regardless of the cause, but (and maybe someone else has suggested this and I missed it) it could be as simple as a task on the list of things to do being de-prioritized because of the sudden urgency to fix the UI. Whatever artist was tasked with the UU could have been moved to UI updates.

Then, a flag might have been raised about the DLC launching without that specific task being complete and the decision may have been made to bite the bullet because of the importance of UI. I'd speculate, if anyone brought up the negative feedback that might result in, it would be reasonable for the decision makers to say that the UU wasn't going to save the perception or reviews of the DLC. I would certainly agree with that. (At 30 bucks and following the reception at launch, this DLC was always doomed as far as reviews go).

At any rate, it's not a good thing, but it's also not necessarily another thing, just part of a domino effect. (And of course, that's just speculation, there's no way we can know unless they decide to share.)

 

[Kankan]

Allegedly Battersea Power Station’s model looks a bit off due to legal reasons as the design is trademarked by the company that owns it

Battersea Power Station owners threaten to sue over image rights

An estate agent is facing shelling out thousands re-branding after the new owners of Battersea Power Station demanded he stop using the iconic…

www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk

It’s worth noting that this was from 12 years ago so it’s possible that whatever company owns it now is more lenient towards image rights over it.

 

[fantsu]

Most of the speculation on the lack of a unique model has assumed a lot of intention or lack of care with that specific DLC. Don't get me wrong, it is a problem regardless of the cause, but (and maybe someone else has suggested this and I missed it) it could be as simple as a task on the list of things to do being de-prioritized because of the sudden urgency to fix the UI. Whatever artist was tasked with the UU could have been moved to UI updates.

Then, a flag might have been raised about the DLC launching without that specific task being complete and the decision may have been made to bite the bullet because of the importance of UI. I'd speculate, if anyone brought up the negative feedback that might result in, it would be reasonable for the decision makers to say that the UU wasn't going to save the perception or reviews of the DLC. I would certainly agree with that. (At 30 bucks and following the reception at launch, this DLC was always doomed as far as reviews go).

At any rate, it's not a good thing, but it's also not necessarily another thing, just part of a domino effect. (And of course, that's just speculation, there's no way we can know unless they decide to share.)

I think this is in a positive way of thinking the problem, but I agree. They didnt even thought of the possibility of making a product with many problems so now Firaxis is at hurry.

Then again I don't think UI-people are the same that render unique units? UU:s have been unique from the start. Now they are not? I feel bad for those who wanted it to go on. I would've never payed extra 30 for this and it seems a bad investment.
I am sure it will be fixed. Eventually.

 

[Maiq]

Most of the speculation on the lack of a unique model has assumed a lot of intention or lack of care with that specific DLC. Don't get me wrong, it is a problem regardless of the cause, but (and maybe someone else has suggested this and I missed it) it could be as simple as a task on the list of things to do being de-prioritized because of the sudden urgency to fix the UI. Whatever artist was tasked with the UU could have been moved to UI updates.

Then, a flag might have been raised about the DLC launching without that specific task being complete and the decision may have been made to bite the bullet because of the importance of UI. I'd speculate, if anyone brought up the negative feedback that might result in, it would be reasonable for the decision makers to say that the UU wasn't going to save the perception or reviews of the DLC. I would certainly agree with that. (At 30 bucks and following the reception at launch, this DLC was always doomed as far as reviews go).

At any rate, it's not a good thing, but it's also not necessarily another thing, just part of a domino effect. (And of course, that's just speculation, there's no way we can know unless they decide to share.)

If they thought releasing a civ without a proper UU was ever going to not tank confidence, or morale or whatever, in not only the game but the company as a whole, then they are actually dumb.

 

[Kyriakos]

Allegedly Battersea Power Station’s model looks a bit off due to legal reasons as the design is trademarked by the company that owns it

Battersea Power Station owners threaten to sue over image rights

An estate agent is facing shelling out thousands re-branding after the new owners of Battersea Power Station demanded he stop using the iconic…

www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk

It’s worth noting that this was from 12 years ago so it’s possible that whatever company owns it now is more lenient towards image rights over it.

Wow, that is all sorts of stupid and vile of them. And I have to doubt that you can get the rights to the image of a building in such a way.

Although reading the article, this may just be a ban on property ads using the building in their logo - ie not at all some attempt to ban use of the likeness of the model in art products.

 

[savateur]

I mean, we can do the back of the envelope math. $150k is a pretty low salary for software engineers with significant experience, but let's assume that's true. Generally, the cost of an employee to a company is roughly double the salary, so $300k. Firaxis has 180 employees, add in 20 from 2k, that's 200 people. That's a yearly budget of $60 million dollars a year. You could maybe argue less, since not everyone is a software engineer, but I would be shocked if the average salary at firaxis was less than $100k. That's $40 million a year.


They put out a game every 2-4 years and have virtually no other income. Yeah, there's like a 0% chance Civ 7 cost less than $70 million. Their previous game, Midnight Suns was cited as a commercial failure despite generally positive reviews and feedback (at least, at a quick glance at wikipedia). They otherwise haven't released a new game since 2020.

I'm guessing Civ 6 DLC has kept the company afloat. I'm not going to weigh in on the importance of unique models for UUs, I frankly have never cared and certainly am unbothered by the accurate portrayal of 19th century battleships. It's clear from this thread that there's a lot of hobbyist military history nerds who care very deeply, so I can't tell you it's not important. But modern game development is very famously just an awful industry and the economics are skewed against niche genres like 4x, even for genre behemoths like Civ. I love historical city builders, and there hasn't been a big budget one released since the botched released on Ceasars 4 in 2006.

 

[Jkchart]

Wow, that is all sorts of stupid and vile of them. And I have to doubt that you can get the rights to the image of a building in such a way.

Although reading the article, this may just be a ban on property ads using the building in their logo - ie not at all some attempt to ban use of the likeness of the model in art products.

The threat of legal action creates issues and unforced changes so that way you don’t have to worry about lawsuits. If they’re worried about it, I can’t blame them for avoiding this particular issue because lawyers are expensive.

 

[Kwami]

The threat of legal action creates issues and unforced changes so that way you don’t have to worry about lawsuits. If they’re worried about it, I can’t blame them for avoiding this particular issue because lawyers are expensive.

They didn't have to choose this particular wonder, though. They could have chosen something else and avoided the entire problem.