The Perils of the DLC Content Drip Sales Strategy

What I really dislikes is they having content that won't be available at later date in some form, even if more expensive than the extra amount for the more expensive version. If it is just cosmetic, then that is less of a bummer to me but still dislikes it.

For example, even though I pre-ordered the founder edition, would still really dislike if it's extra content, thje founder content pack will really not be available later for others as the date suggests. I'm hoping it means the pack won't, but at least the two personas will separately be available.
Most likely they'll just shift from "editions" to "upgrade packs" as separate DLC post-launch. Content permanently disappearing from stores has never been a thing for Civ. Even "preorder exclusives" nowadays become available for purchase later. The industry as a whole is - slowly - moving away from permanently locking players out of content anyway. And I'm sure that if the whole idea is to prey really hard on FOMO, they'd put the fact that the content is only available until the end of February much more prominently in the front instead of in the fine print. FOMO marketing is useless if people don't even know that they can miss out and never develop a fear of that in the first place.
 
I'm curious to know how people feel about the DLC content drip strategy approach that Firaxis has taken over the years and how it might affect people's views of the upcoming CIV 7
I don't think anything i've seen as "necessary" has been part of DLC so I'm happy. It would take something like, and i'm absolutely not expecting this to happen, they made a DLC which unlocks being able to play with larger number number of civs, that would be a negative happiness modifier.
 
I was meaning more that we're losing some aspects of religious victory as well
I'm happy to see it gone; tying it to culture victory in the Exploration Age is already too much Religious Victory for me. I thought the Religious Victory was a very poor design decision.

Sort of odd for religions depicted IRL as iconoclastic, but I'm not religious scholar either.
Islam is the aniconic religion par excellence and still has relics. Icons and relics aren't exactly the same thing.

As an aside, I can't help but read all of Zaarin's posts in Doctor Bashir's voice.
dr-bashir-garak.gif
 
As far as Civ VII is concerned, the game doesn’t seem particularly thin to me. There are more civs than ever (yes I know only ten per age but that’s not a dealbreaker for me) and each is incredibly fleshed out. If you want to talk about the AAA gaming industry as a whole, that’s a different story. But I also don’t play those games so.
 
The perception that the old Civ games were more feature complete at launch is just not accurate. Civ 2, for example, was a very simple game. There were no civ bonuses, no UUs, only science and conquest victory, religion didn't exist as a feature and was just loosely represented. You couldn't even have certain civ combos because there were 7 colors shared by 21 civs. The one that always annoyed me was that Spain and the Aztec were both yellow and could thus never be in the same game. If they tried to launch a game like this with modernized graphics in 2025, people would be furious. In fact, we know this game would not be that popular because FreeCiv exists and very few people play it relative to Civ 6.

The reason that game felt complete and some of the modern games don't is because in that game things worked well together. It isn't that there were more features, but that most things made sense. The modern games are not lacking in features, they actually end up with feature bloat when all is said and done. The issue is that the features that do make the game are often poorly thought out and don't always synergize with the rest of the game very well.
 
The modern games are not lacking in features, they actually end up with feature bloat when all is said and done. The issue is that the features that do make the game are often poorly thought out and don't always synergize with the rest of the game very well.
*cough*religion/espionage/world congress in Civ6*cough*
 
I feel like people have memory holed how anemic Civ 5 was on release. There was no religion, bare bones and bland culture victory, and horribly bland civs (I think the most unique power was the Iriqouis). I don't think any civ game will ever be as awful on release as 5. Civ 7 seems a bit undercooked compared to 6 and 4, but both of those were the most complete on release and felt like truely full and cohesive games.

The content pipeline is also totally the same as civ 5 and 6. A collection of dlcs and map packs for the first year, followed by 2 expansions. I don't imagine they will change their very successful bussiness model. Unless I've missed a major change they've announced.
 
The DLC strategy feels more like a 2K decision than a Firaxis choice but I’m ok with it.

It costs money to create games and I’m willing to pay for a good quality game. And I have spent > 1000 hours in Civ 6.

I realise that as a 44 year old guy, I don’t represent the majority of gamers who are often much younger people with fewer resources, as I was 20 years ago, but I’m happy to pay for my favourite franchise.

I feel like people have memory holed how anemic Civ 5 was on release. There was no religion, bare bones and bland culture victory, and horribly bland civs (I think the most unique power was the Iriqouis). I don't think any civ game will ever be as awful on release as 5. Civ 7 seems a bit undercooked compared to 6 and 4, but both of those were the most complete on release and felt like truely full and cohesive games.

The content pipeline is also totally the same as civ 5 and 6. A collection of dlcs and map packs for the first year, followed by 2 expansions. I don't imagine they will change their very successful bussiness model. Unless I've missed a major change they've announced.
I actually think 7 is more fully fleshed than 6 was.
6 needed Rise and Fall for me to become really good with the era score, golden and dark age mechanics.

Where 7 is obviously cutting is the ending in the 1950s-60s omitting the post modern / computer age.what’s there feels much more fleshed out
 
Top Bottom