We will pay for the missing/removed Age in the future?

[Patine]

Scheherazade is a fictional character though, I think

She's one of those whose existence, while dubious (or, at least, dubious as exactly portrayed), is not completely discountable, either, and she probably existed in some form or another. If Dido, Gilgamesh, and Tomyris, who are in the same boat, have been leaders...

 

[Taefin]

I was a little peeved my the on-release DLC pricing structure, but it makes enough sense to me. If I plan on playing VII long enough to miss having a few leaders, civs and wonders, then spending $200+ over the lifetime of the game seems reasonable to me. If I was going to play for 40-60 hours and move on, then the base edition is priced comparably to games that most players put that much time into.

I am very glad a prototype of a 4th age was not included at launch. As is, modern age doesn’t feel sufficiently different from antiquity/exploration (my current rant is that factories/industrialization is not essential to getting the resources needed to use late game stuff). I trust we will see it improved, but I think VII is doing a good job of make not stretching the game past what interstint to play. In the spirit of the HK vs VII thead, that is what I think made HK get old, flavorless mid-late game ages that turns the world into quarters.

 

[canadamufc]

I think most people have realized the game just abruptly ends, but simply don't care for it because there might be around 6 total people on this earth who genuinely want a 4th age with more late game tedium.

Firaxis, if you're going to aggressively and predatorily monetize your game, keep it within the 3 ages, thanks.

 

[teakbois2112]

She's one of those whose existence, while dubious (or, at least, dubious as exactly portrayed), is not completely discountable, either, and she probably existed in some form or another. If Dido, Gilgamesh, and Tomyris, who are in the same boat, have been leaders...

Are you trying to insinuate my two best Civ VI friends are imaginary?

 

[Patine]

Are you trying to insinuate my two best Civ VI friends are imaginary?

I didn't say, "imaginary," any more than Sheharazade is, "imaginary." Please, re-read my post.

 

[ombak]

If they are planning a 4th age for a future expansion, that is no more "removed" content than any other expansion feature.

Datamining is inconclusive because it is out of context. Is the datamined stuff scrapped? Is it a game mode? Is it something that was in a trunk build at one time, then removed? If it comes in an expansion, how do we know it wasn't always meant for the expansion? How do we know it wasn't removed from the game and re-added when expansion features were finally locked? If it is released as a game mode, how do we know it wasn't always a game mode? How do we know if it was an original feature that did not playtest well and got changed to a game mode?

I think the only thing we can say for sure about datamined content of this type is that we don't know what it was meant to be or could become and probably is something that should have been removed from the build, but for some reason some pieces didn't get removed.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

I think most people have realized the game just abruptly ends, but simply don't care for it because there might be around 6 total people on this earth who genuinely want a 4th age with more late game tedium.

Firaxis, if you're going to aggressively and predatorily monetize your game, keep it within the 3 ages, thanks.

A bit more than 6 want another age. The game does end abruptly and feels unfinished.

As for the "aggressively and predatorily monetize your game" oh yes, I agree that's what they've done.
(we'll get the extra ages no doubt, but yeah, we're gonna have to pay for'em)

btw, this is what's known as "shooting yerself in the foot". (firaxis, not you)

 

[Evie]

You cannot make a game without money to pay the staff, and investors are only willing to pay you to design a game for so long before it starts making *some* revenue of some sort.

Cutting stuff that you don't have the resources to complete now and adding it back later once you've started actually making money with which to pay your staff is not "predatory monetization", despite the childish whinging of far too many cheapskate fanboys. It's basic common freaking sense.

It just gets in the way of entitled gamers.

 

[ehecatzin]

If they are planning a fourth age, I hope they scrap it. It would make the game worse.
Victory paths need work, and they could maybe add another round of techs, but leave future age to the fantasy stuff that they added late in Civ VI's lifecycle

+1 THIS

I want to to see all 3 ages expanded, adding a 4th age is a slippery slope into, adding a 5th future age, maybe another age inbetwen antiquity and exploration? what about a prehistoric age?

I'd rather see Antiquity expanded into late antiquity, use the narrative events and quest to give us better unlocks and paths for existing civs (ej- Rome staying republic or unlocking Empire). Exploration could be expanded to beging a little earlier to draw more from the medieval period, and modern could of course be extended into information era.

I would hope the devs would expand rather than just repeat, 2 age reset seem fine, if anything I'd like them to feel more "earned" rather that just repeat them a bunch of times to get more ages in.

 

[Evie]

Definitely agreed., I would rather see the existing ages - and crisises! - expanded and deepened rather than more ages stapled in.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

You cannot make a game without money to pay the staff, and investors are only willing to pay you to design a game for so long before it starts making *some* revenue of some sort.

Cutting stuff that you don't have the resources to complete now and adding it back later once you've started actually making money with which to pay your staff is not "predatory monetization", despite the childish whinging of far too many cheapskate fanboys. It's basic common freaking sense.

It just gets in the way of gamer entitlement.

First time I've been called a "fanboy".

Cutting too much, leaving too much unfinished and still releasing at very high price point instead of holding off or cancelling, IS shooting yourself in the foot from a long term outlook. Point this out is not "childish whining".

The game is nowhere near finished, and should NOT , repeat NOT have been released as is. Period dot.

Adding extra civs, more ages, yes, putting that into a DLC is fine and to be expected! duh! Too much has been left out, or put behind the 2k acct thing.
(I still don't like that)

"gamer entitlement". methinks I'll leave that alone as the "entitlement" part is a personal hotbutton issue for me.


... expanding the ages eg, "late antiquity" just another name for another age. (but without the transitions, which I still really really don't like)

I've tried the crisis once. It seemed more of an annoyance than anything else. (I ONLY do marathon, so games take a long time) I'm going to take a closer
look at them this time. (is there any benefit to leaving them on, or just turn off the annoyance for now? They do seem only half finished to me)

 

[Krajzen]

It is not entirely impossible for them to introduce fourth age as a free patch accompanying some future expansion, with new civs, leaders and mechanics being paid stuff. Paradox and Creative Assembly sometimes divided new huge updates between free and paid content like this. Sure Firaxis never did, but they have also never did something akin to new frontier pass before civ6.

My personal opinion on this topic is mixed. On one hand I wouldn't like 50% of the game to be spent in the (let's say) 1750-2050 period. A solution to this problem would be making the latter two ages somewhat shorter than the former two, so it'd be like 40% instead (30-30-20-20). I also wouldn't like an entirely new set of civs wasting dev effort just to provide us with double France, double US, Britain->UK etc.

On the other hand I think 1945-2050 era would indeed warrant its own cool mechanics separate from 1750-1945. And in some cases I would like to see modern civs - such as India, Indonesia, industry focused PRC, some postcolonial African state, scientific Republic of Korea, pacifist united Germany, Czechoskovakia...

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

It is not entirely impossible for them to introduce fourth age as a free part of some future expansion, with new civs, leaders and mechanics being paid stuff. Paradox and Creative Assembly sometimes divided new huge updates between free and paid content like this. Sure Firaxis never did, but they have also never did something akin to new frontier pass before civ6.

I liked (and bought) the Frontier Pass. Saying up front, "here give us money NOW, and we'll give you stuff a few years down the road for it, at no more charge" is fine.

So yes, extra ages as DLC, no problem with that. (and extra ages are not what I'm thinking of for cut stuff)

 

[Evie]

First time I've been called a "fanboy".

Cutting too much, leaving too much unfinished and still releasing at very high price point instead of holding off or cancelling, IS shooting yourself in the foot from a long term outlook. Point this out is not "childish whining".

The game is nowhere near finished, and should NOT , repeat NOT have been released as is. Period dot.

Adding extra civs, more ages, yes, putting that into a DLC is fine and to be expected! duh! Too much has been left out, or put behind the 2k acct thing.
(I still don't like that)

"gamer entitlement". methinks I'll leave that alone as the "entitlement" part is a personal hotbutton issue for me.

And where would the money to keep the design work going have come from while they weren't releasing, exactly? Should people work for free so you can get what you want?

With very rare exceptions (basically, games that are passion projects of people with very deep pocket, you have to chose two:
-Complexity/Quality of Features (done up to modern AAA standards).
-Number of Features
-A game that doesn't cost hundreds (plural) of dollars.

You can have all the features the devs/fans would like done up to modern AAA standards, but that's going to be a multi-hundreds of dollars game. Or you can have a sub-100$ game with lots of features, but it won't have state of the art graphic and the features will all be kept relatively simple. Or you can have features up to modern standards and a (Base game) price under 100%, but have to cut features or hold them back for expansions.

There is no rational world where there is a reasonable expectation to have all three.

 

[wesplaysciv]

I just hope they add/enhance mechanics in the existing ages in addition to the virtually guaranteed 4th age DLC. Unfortunately, a lot of things just show up in one age and then basically disappear (e.g. the great works, religion). I'm sure it simplifies things to have new mechanics confined to a new age but I would like a lot more in the existing ages.

 

[AriochIV]

We can argue about whether or not the fourth Age is "missing" content, but trying to pretend at this point that it's not coming is just sticking your head in the sand. It seemed pretty obvious given the game's structure when it became clear how early the Modern Age ends, but ever since Ed Beach himself alluded to it, every detail of the Age mechanics in the shipped game adds to rather than takes away from the conclusion that this is their plan. Might the plans change? Possibly, but I think that's very unlikely.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

And where would the money to keep the design work going have come from while they weren't releasing, exactly? Should people work for free so you can get what you want?

With very rare exceptions (basically, games that are passion projects of people with very deep pocket, you have to chose two:
-Complexity/Quality of Features (done up to modern AAA standards).
-Number of Features
-A game that doesn't cost hundreds (plural) of dollars.

You can have all the features the devs/fans would like done up to modern AAA standards, but that's going to be a multi-hundreds of dollars game. Or you can have a sub-100$ game with lots of features, but it won't have state of the art graphic and the features will all be kept relatively simple. Or you can have features up to modern standards and a (Base game) price under 100%, but have to cut features or hold them back for expansions.

There is no rational world where there is a reasonable expectation to have all three.

Ok, I wasn't clear in my first post about the extra ages. I did say "yeah, and we're gonna have to pay for'em".

I actually don't mind that.

btw, the game was over $170 CDN for the founders edition.

"There is no rational world where there is a reasonable expectation to have all three." I actually agree with that.
However, it would have been nice to tell us what isn't going to be in the base game, and will have to wait for DLC.
(obviously not everything, you do want some surprises, but some idea of what isn't gonna be there would have been nice)

No matter what, the game still feels unfinished. (btw, for extra ages after modern, they could easily have plopped in a screen saying
"Stay tuned for more" or something. THAT would have shutup a lot of people, and would have taken very little time/resources to do.
(and of course, a teaser like that would fire up the speculation threads. win/win all around)

This ain't my first rodeo for games/software. Nice thing about being retired. I can flap my gums all I like.

 

[Evie]

I mean, fair, but from where I stand, every sequel game feels incomplete these days because they come on the heels of other games that a)were done on less complex systems and b)had the benefit of several years worth of DLC/Expansion.

They did mention, however, in the Modern Era design stream, when the modern era ended, and that it might feel like something was missing. They also mentioned the possibility of adding something there later.

I do know what the price of the founders edition was (and even in Canadian money!), but I think the right baseline price for comparison there is the base game price.

 

[Patine]

You cannot make a game without money to pay the staff, and investors are only willing to pay you to design a game for so long before it starts making *some* revenue of some sort.

Cutting stuff that you don't have the resources to complete now and adding it back later once you've started actually making money with which to pay your staff is not "predatory monetization", despite the childish whinging of far too many cheapskate fanboys. It's basic common freaking sense.

It just gets in the way of entitled gamers.

I remember the halcyon days when the GAME sold the GAME and paid for the GAME and all of it's expenses. Games including the first five civ iterations. I think their has been a definite change in the way the gaming industry does business now - outside indie game companies' one-off's - that is not for the best (and, I believe the practice started with EA, but that's a different discussion), and not just, "cheapskate fanboys (and a few fangirls and fannonbinaries) whining." Such a condescending attitude does not address these things productivities

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Has anyone gone back and looked at the original-release Civ5 tech tree recently?