1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

What's your opinion regarding Firaxis adopting a content model similar to Paradox Interactive?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by AntSou, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:46 PM.

  1. bite

    bite Unoffical Civilization Geographer Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,676
    One thing I think people forget when threads like this come up is that Paradox are their own bosses (okay a publicly traded company so shareholders), Firaxis is not in that situation, and as such 2K might have a large say on the business model they can implement
     
    Kimiimaro, Infixo, Victoria and 2 others like this.
  2. Red Adept

    Red Adept Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    55
    I think FXS's content model is pretty solid. I much prefer larger expansions than micro-transactions. I'd rather have major updates and additions to gameplay be as they're doing now, including new leaders/abilities, etc... I like what they did with Civ 5, making Nebby a pre-release DLC before being included in the major update. It cost them nothing (in essence) and allowed those who wanted the experience to have it before most of everyone.

    I really like what Civ6 has to offer and would love to see a full re-skin over the engine for SMAC or a Civ II Test of Time style makeover. (I played that way too much.)
     
  3. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,650
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    The Paradox' model is right for Paradox. Don't forget that, unlike Civ, Paradox is always Earth. Something has to change on the globe to keep the game entertaining. And it has to change more often. Imagine FXS having to fiddle with individual tile yields every few patches. They'd soon embrace the PDX model.
     
    Icicle likes this.
  4. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,504
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I strongly against this idea.

    Civilization is a strategic game where balancing things is really important, so it needs a small number of packages which are highly tested and work well with each other.

    Paradox makes simulators, so for those games, it's ok to throw in a lot of content, not caring about it working together or overall balance.

    Also, I think it would be better to call this "Maxis model", not "Paradox model", because Maxis generally invented simulators and content flood DLC.
     
  5. acluewithout

    acluewithout Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,244
    I mean, I’d like more DLC? Is that an answer?

    Hmm. DLC or big expansion?

    I’d prefer a few thematic dlc which focus on a narrow set of mechanics and flavour, rather than just one big blow the doors off expansion. Maybe an Ideologies expansion, a war (future war) expansion, colonialism expansion etc.

    After that, I live some spin-off games where you sort of have Civ VI vanilla but can then buy an expansion that leverages the vanilla base game. The first one could be Colonization. The second could be Beyond Earth. You get the idea.
     
  6. Medopu

    Medopu Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    117
    OP, i have but one proverb for you, that perfectly summarizes my thoughts on your idea:
    The whole is more than sum of its parts.
    i'm not sure OP realizes all the consequences the Paradox financial model brings up. The biggest would be, that there would be no sequels or big expansion packs like gathering storm (or Civilization 6 for that matter), because these take months and years to complete, whereas the paradox dlc's do not.
    Let me make a thought experiment. I will set a starting date after the release of CIV6 Rise&Fall.
    We then decide to clone Firaxis into two completely equal studios and present each one with the following tasks, which they have to complete in 1 year time:
    Firaxis A: This one has to create 1 expansion pack
    Firaxis B: This one has to create 3 dlc's
    With this scenario in mind, I would bet my head that Firaxis A would produce an overall better experience than Firaxis B.
    "Why are you so sure?" - you ask
    The big advantage is how features in civilization games that come bundled together can synchronize with each other in ways that aren't possible in paradox games because of compatibility concerns between various dlcs. If you take just one main feature away from GS like disasters or world congress, the expansion pack becomes 10x less enjoyable, not "a bit more empty".
    If anything, paradox should learn a thing or two from Firaxis. Let new dlc's incorporate fatures from old dlc's if the features are good and could collaborate with the new features. Make a bit less dlc's and make each one of those more impactful.
     
    Red Adept and acluewithout like this.
  7. acluewithout

    acluewithout Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,244
    Agree.

    That said, the game might be at a point now where smaller dlc would work. I’m not sure another expansion would cover so much ground as GA.

    Although. That said. If FXS did an expansion around ideologies, then that could have pretty wide implications. Introducing something like social policies and having maybe some policy cards unlock through that, having loyalty, or tourism or diplo favour being effected by beliefs and ideologies, having world congress resolutions that leverage ideologies and beliefs etc. ...

    Yeah. That could be a petty big expansion.

    But stuff like future tech, or reworking trade, or navies and military or disease or whatever. These are all things that could be done with much smaller mechanics and dlc.
     
  8. Kwami

    Kwami Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,176
    Well, except for that popular space game that's definitely not Earth and is also their biggest seller. :p
     
    LoganInCamo likes this.
  9. ZimZum514

    ZimZum514 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2017
    Messages:
    28
    It comes down to the paradox of choice for me. They offer too many options. I wouldn't be happy unless I either have all or none of them. In my case, I'd end up spending entirely too much money for the amount of entertainment I'd get out of it. I'm happier with fewer, but larger DLCs where I know I'm getting the full intended experience. Now, whether that experience is a good one is a different conversation, but I would be happy to know that I have the "complete" package.
     
    Meluhhan and Medopu like this.
  10. Icicle

    Icicle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Messages:
    251
    I would like to see Civ 6 get the level of continued attention, community interaction, and response that Paradox gives their games. Only since Gathering Storm has this team really shown anything close. Civ 6 languished for a very long time with almost nothing during a period where a Paradox game would have received a dozen patches.

    So the exact model? Well it obviously won't work it's a very different game. Could they take a few pages out of the Paradox book? Very much yes. I think the complaints about prices of expansions would be greatly addressed if we knew each expansion would also get several comprehensive follow up balance/performance patches and additional content.
     
  11. tedhebert

    tedhebert Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Messages:
    557
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    No... No... no...

    And then again NO !!!

    Did I mention NO ?
     
    Medopu likes this.
  12. Kupe Navigator

    Kupe Navigator Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    NO NO NO...
    If they want to add more content do it as a patch. The patch is enough to solve most of the problems civ 6 has.
     
    Medopu likes this.
  13. Stringer1313

    Stringer1313 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Messages:
    844
    Yeah I also prefer the civ model. I am always a believer of less is more.

    HOWEVER, you made the mistake of tantalizing me with the notion of a new Alpha Centauri. :) I would happily ditch further Civ 6 expansions for a remake of alpha centauri! (But not Civ 7. I don't think they should iterate Civs too quickly.)
     
    AntSou likes this.
  14. steveg700

    steveg700 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,747
    Man, why do people start threads where they just assume everyone knows what they're talking about? Provide context.

    Civ VI is a simple and basic game. They're not looking to build out systems and add complexity that their bad AI can't utilize. Firaxis wants Civ to be a procedural game a few hairs above the level of a mobile game. We're not going to get anything ambitious, so DLC from them would just be stuff like more civ's, which generally aren't compelling enough mechanically to drive me to purchase them.

    To Firaxis' credit, it does make a good deal of sense to bundle systemic changes into an expansion, thereby ensuring a semblance of cohesion.
     
  15. ehecatzin

    ehecatzin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,055
    I think civilization works better with an expansion model, but I think there's space in it for smaller DLC bundles, like civ or leader bundles and graphical packs, for example I wouldn't mind if they made a graphical pack that included diferent terrain sets (like in civ V)
     
  16. Hammurabbit

    Hammurabbit Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sweden
    I like the Paradox model, at least for the Paradox games (or EU4 which is the only Paradox-game I've purchased). The amount of content and depth that you get if you purchase all DLCs would simply not be possible using a more classic business model. As an example, EU4 have several DLCs with quite niche content, for example deep dive in Indias political situation in the 1400s, which I think would be difficult to bring if not in a DLC format and a game designed to be expanded with new content.

    It obviously has it's downsides (dependencies between DLCs, super high entry point for new players, ...) and I guess at some point those will force Paradox to retire their games. I have a feeling EU4 is close to that point as the latest DLCs have failed to revitilize the game (at least for me).

    I think game companies think more and more about their games as platforms for growth rather than one-offs and I think that's super exciting. That's what makes it possible for super deep games and more organic development of the games with input from the communities.

    I don't think Civ is in such a different situation. The expansions so far has been quite impressive in terms of how much they've changed the game but that will likely slow down, as the game balance will be more difficult to maintain, dependencies between expansions will be difficult to manage and expansions will feel mandatory for new players. And then, why shouldn't we still enjoy more content based updates - new civs, leaders, new wonders, etc to make the game grow even further?
     
    AntSou likes this.
  17. Packherd2

    Packherd2 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    116
    So, I don’t mind the vanilla-plus-expansions that Firaxis has used. But I loathed the early access model used for Offworld Trading Co.

    Paradox’s game-plus-bazillions-of-DLCs-plus-interminable-updates feels closer to early access than the Firaxis model, to me. I guess I like the idea in theory that the developers stay involved in their game longer, and in the case of Crusader Kings it seems they never left, but in practice it feels like moving into an unfinished house.
     
  18. AntSou

    AntSou Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Messages:
    24
    It's still a more likely proposition than Half Life 3, even if I've been waiting longer for a remake of Alpha Centauri :D.
     

Share This Page