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

[bite]

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

 

[Red Adept]

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.)

 

[Bibor]

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.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

 

[acluewithout]

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.

 

[Medopu]

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.

 

[acluewithout]

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.

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.

 

[Kwami]

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.

Well, except for that popular space game that's definitely not Earth and is also their biggest seller.

 

[ZimZum514]

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.

 

[Icicle]

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.

 

[tedhebert]

No... No... no...

And then again NO !!!

Did I mention NO ?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

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.

 

[Stringer1313]

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.)

 

[steveg700]

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.

 

[ehecatzin]

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)

 

[Hammurabbit]

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?

 

[Packherd2]

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.

 

[AntSou]

you made the mistake of tantalizing me with the notion of a new Alpha Centauri

It's still a more likely proposition than Half Life 3, even if I've been waiting longer for a remake of Alpha Centauri .

 

[Gloompy]

I feel I was ripped off by Paradox. I got the first Season Pass thinking I'd get all future content, yet came a SECOND Season Pass, which is $40, enough for a brand new game. I felt it disgusting and turned me off to Cities Skyline completely. Haven't played it in months and I dont plan on buying anymore content from them. So it backfired when it comes to me.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I was wondering how long it would be until "Civ is a simple cell phone game!!!!!!!" came out.