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

[AntSou]

I understand a lot of people are not fans of Paradox Interactive DLC/Expansion model, but I'm with the crowd which believes the benefits far exceed the drawbacks. The only real criticism I can direct at them is that they should take greater care with their content bundles. One of the advantages is that it allows them to dramatically change key aspects of gameplay, as they have done with Stellaris. Changes can always revert back if they turn out not to work or be unpopular.

I believe CIV 6 could benefit from a a similar approach, with more expansions and more DLC compared to previous Civilisation games. I would also approve of a more dynamic approach to altering basic game mechanics with regular updates where needed.

Are you a fan of such a model? Even if you are, would you like to see it being used by Firaxis?

 

[SxSnts9]

I'm very torn on what Paradox does. The drip by drip system of dlc/expansions they like to use means if I purchase a Paradox game I have to accept that I'll end up spending over $200 if I want the FULL game experience in the future. At the same time supporting a game that far into the future is pretty cool. But do I want Firaxis to take this approach with Civ? No I do not. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Stringer1313]

Can you clarify what the Paradox model is (I don't buy Paradox games a lot)? I assume they release a lot of expansions? How often?

 

[AntSou]

I disagree with the 'full game experience' argument, however. Granted, EU4 at release really lacked some important content, but the game became a 'full game' years ago, yet content kept coming out after that. Stellaris is already a full game, maybe lacks a bit of polish here and there, yet one can expect that they'll keep adding stuff beyond that.

Besides, a company must survive somehow. Even if they are not charging customers money for extensions to the base game, they will still be charging for other products. So that means either working on unrelated products, or start working on the next iteration of Civilisation.


I would rather have Firaxis focus on CIV VI for a longer period of time, with more expansions and dlc, rather than have them divert resources to the next title.

 

[leandrombraz]

I still didn't play a Paradox game but I have to say, the store page of their games looks scary. There's way too much DLCs, I get discouraged of playing it not only because of the price but also because I would need to figure out which DLCs I should buy since I definitely won't buy it all and just entertaining the idea of trying to understand what those DLCs do is tiresome. I go in, I take a look, I nope the heck out of there.

I also think games have a saturation point, there's only so much stuff they can add before it start to hurt the experience more than it add to it. I'm in favor of a third expansion but I think it would already be a stretch, Civ VI have enough going on as it is.

 

[AntSou]

Can you clarify what the Paradox model is (I don't buy Paradox games a lot)? I assume they release a lot of expansions? How often?

Essentially, rather than focus on constantly releasing new games like most companies, Paradox Development Studio focus on a few titles for a much longer period of time. That means their revenue comes from frequent expansions and dlc to the base game.

There's usually a huge disparity in the quality/importance of their expansions/DLC. Some offer very good content, other are just overpriced immersion packs which you should only buy on sale. For instance, latest EUIV DLC has mostly negative reviews on steam. The latest Crusader Kings 2 DLC has overwhelmingly positive reviews.

They also do it in such a way that you can generally mix and match DLC as you please. (I don't think this is doable in Civ 6, other than in regards to more Civilisations/Leaders, maps, etc).

Crusader Kings 2 - Released in 2012, latest expansion released in November 2018. Total 15 Expansions/DLC.
Europa Universalis IV - Released in 2013, latest expansion released in December 2018. Total 15 Expansions/DLC.
Stellaris - Released 2016, 7 expansions/dlc, latest last week.
Hearts of Iron IV - Released 2016, 4 expansions total, latest in February.
---


Some people don't like this practice because it's not the 'full game experience'. I find this a bit misleading. They simply just keep adding stuff beyond the 'Full Game Experience' point, mainly because there's no point in releasing EUV, or Crusader Kings 3. There's no need for graphical or engine updates, so they just keep adding stuff to the base games instead.

(Side note, we do need Victoria 3 and fast!)

---

Anyway, let me put it in a milder manner:

Would you rather have Firaxis add a third and maybe even a fourth expansion to Civ 6, with additional Civ/Leaders DLC, or would you rather have them divert those resources to Civ 7 (or other Civ-like game like Alpha Centauri)?

 

[Kwami]

I dislike just about everything that Paradox does with DLC.

1. They charge far too much for what you get.
2. The game is always unstable and waiting for the next patch or DLC.
3. Because there are so many expansions, the developers have to constantly consider every possible permutation of installed content. That's not possible, of course, so they really just work with the full set and never mind how the game feels when some packs are missing.
4. Also, for the same reason, mechanics in one DLC usually can't build on mechanics in another DLC because there's no guarantee that the player has the other DLC.

I much prefer what Firaxis does. GS included all of the R&F mechanics, leaving out only the (important!) fluff (civs, wonders, etc.). That way, everything can work together nicely. And, the price was more than reasonable.

EDIT: And, of course, Firaxis could certainly add a third, fourth, or even fifth expansion to Civ VI without adopting the horrible Paradox model.

 

[AntSou]

I understand that. What about my question above in bold? Would you prefer another expansion (maybe even two), or have them work on the next Civ / Civ-like title?

 

[Breezin]

Ha Ha. Sometime I think about this but then I stop.

Very early in the morning I often drink my coffee and play it but not long. Working at Marlboro I get free stuff. Join me online I say then we talk funny.

Ha Ha. Sometime I think about this too again.

I agree.

 

[Starwars]

The main thing I would wish Firaxis do is to be more active patch-wise and community-wise. They've been improving on this front, especially with the latest patch which looks pretty meaty, and you get video updates as well as the streams. More stuff like that please.

But I'm not generally a fan of "micro DLC" so to speak. Both like what Paradox does as well as when Firaxis do the civilization leader DLCs. I am just not a fan of this and I think the price points feel off. But I also thought GS was a on the expensive side so maybe I'm just a big cheapskate, hehe.

Personally I'm very glad to see Civ VI getting more patch support because I still feel like there are plenty of things that needs to be improved, and even downright *fixed*. I'd be fine with another expansion myself but in that case I do hope they're considering how to add things without "bogging down" the game with features that may tip the game into just feeling slow instead of interesting.

 

[pokiehl]

I just want more content and longer support. I'll buy any and all dlc they put out for civ 6.

 

[Depravo]

Absolutely no way. Speaking as a fan rather than a shareholder, Paradox made a terrible blunder when they went down that path.

 

[AntSou]

And, of course, Firaxis could certainly add a third, fourth, or even fifth expansion to Civ VI without adopting the horrible Paradox model.

Perhaps me mentioning Paradox was the wrong way to go about it.

What I want is longer support compared to what we've had in previous civ titles.
---

Absolutely no way. Speaking as a fan rather than a shareholder, Paradox made a terrible blunder when they went down that path.

In what sense is it a blunder and what would be the alternative, in your opinion?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not a fan of having things effectively patched out and sold back to me in a different form, so no. That's some EA-level stuff and they've done it several times in EU 4 alone.

Also, Pdox is one of the few gaming companies that competes with Civ 5/6 in poor UI. It's slightly more convenient to use but also more often straight up lies to players, so I'd broadly consider it worse on average.

The one area where Pdox policy is objectively better than Firaxis is when it comes to MP (rather than DLC compatibility, everyone uses the host's DLC in MP). But by and large the DLC policy of Pdox has pushed a mix of interesting and meh features on a schedule/level of priority that has continuously left their games a buggy, UI-lying mess.

• Take this option that says you can create factions? Nope, you can't create factions.
• Declare this war and the game says members will be cobelligerent? Nope, they're not cobelligerent, suck on that double war score cost.
• This nation is allied to you and it gets a truce when breaking it, delaying when it can declare w/o major penalties? Nope, there happens to be a situation where the AI can just straight up declare, ignoring the alliance outright.
• Can't take this province because you can't core it? Nope, you could actually core it instantaneously. But the game WILL let you take provinces you actually can't core immediately sometimes, and more rarely that you can't core at all w/o another war. Because reasons.
• Rebels need at least 1 fort to break the country? Nah dawg, you should have known that was fake news! Even territories on a different island w/o any forts is plenty, what the rebel warning screen says about it was just a prank bro.

Each of these bugs have been properly reported. Multiple times. As of several years ago. That's the kind of standard we consider, when we consider if Firaxis should adopt Pdox's DLC model.

Is that what we want to see here? In a game series that's already regressed in UI by objective measures across its last two iterations (#inputs, time spent interacting with it to do basic tasks)?

 

[Depravo]

In what sense is it a blunder and what would be the alternative, in your opinion?

This has been raked over a thousand times in discussions here, on Reddit, on the Paradox forum itself and on Steam, but for me:
- Tacking on 'flavour of the month' systems to add superficial meat to 'immersion packs' that add little but complexity and integrate poorly with the existing game
- Integration is further harmed because Paradox can't assume the player has all previous expansions, so all new elements have to be able to stand alone, however imperfectly. Sometimes they relent. I understand 'development' now comes with the base version of EU4, for example.

My solution would be roughly what Firaxis have done with Civ 6. Large, relatively infrequent expansions it is assumed every serious player will buy, supported by patches, just like Paradox used to. First 2 iterations of EU, CK1 and Vic 1 got 1 or 2 expansions each but were patched for years.

For me it's not about cost - I have deep pockets for the right game - but this cynical gouging of the customer base has gone too far, and I no longer buy Paradox titles, having supported them since before the release of EU1.

 

[Sostratus]

Would you rather have Firaxis add a third and maybe even a fourth expansion to Civ 6, with additional Civ/Leaders DLC, or would you rather have them divert those resources to Civ 7 (or other Civ-like game like Alpha Centauri)?

Since we have the economics technology unlocked in our reality, the optimal pricing model for any software company is essentially a marxist phrase: from each according to his ability willingness to pay. That is, get people who value civ6 as a $200 value to pay $200 and people who see it as a $30 value to pay $30. The problem with price discrimination is always differentiating who is who (and sometimes pesky laws.) Free 2 play models attempt a version of this. As you mentioned, having a bunch of dlc and content lets people mix and match. It moves the game from an all or nothing $60 purchase to a more graduated scale, to attempt to get that price discrimination.

I think FXS has tried to set themselves up as a "polished content" studio. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not (it can mean you won't go back on design or balance decisions or rework something because it would mean you messed up.) But i think people are confusing the concept of paradox's literal dev cycle with the idea of just having DLC to extend the support life of the game. I think civ6 is very well set up for adapting any number of business plans: you have the traditional xpacs, and you've got content modularity with civs, scenarios, and -a great change over 5- Leaders. Just adding a handful of popular leaders as alternates would be an easy way to make some money. George Washington, for example, would be very downloaded and could fund a small crew to do balancing for the next several quarters.

The main thing I would wish Firaxis do is to be more active patch-wise and community-wise. They've been improving on this front, especially with the latest patch which looks pretty meaty, and you get video updates as well as the streams. More stuff like that please.

I think in the run up to GS and since they have been really really good about this. Big points for them, I was literally begging for it after R&F. While community engagement doesn't have to cost much (simply posting messages is also engagement, you don't have to do those wonderful videos every patch) making content and supporting a game isn't free, and those developer hours could be spent on civ7 or another title to make more money. Community engagement does bring you benefits in terms of fan base spending $$, but it's not a direct thing and easy to overlook when you are trying to get your numbers up.

The biggest issue for any company switching to the "PDX model" is that it requires you to reorganize how your development cycles are set up / program management. They are currently doing quarterly patches. Can Carl and Dennis and Anton push out a patch every month? I'm sure they are capable of it, but I imagine there are a hundred processes and chains of dependence set up for 3 month cycles that would have to change. I strongly doubt they go lay on a beach for 2 months and then bang out a patch! At some point, though, if they are ever serious about making multiplayer a big aspect of enjoying civ, they will need to switch to a more agile system. You can't have gamebreaking imbalance in MP for 3 months at a time, people will stop playing it.

 

[CPWimmer]

Anyway, let me put it in a milder manner:

Would you rather have Firaxis add a third and maybe even a fourth expansion to Civ 6, with additional Civ/Leaders DLC, or would you rather have them divert those resources to Civ 7 (or other Civ-like game like Alpha Centauri)?

Yes, but only to a certain extent.

I would prefer them focus on Civ6 somewhere into mid or late 2021 with paid content, and then maybe another year of "free" patch support while also working on whatever comes next.
What I would personally like is 1 or 2 more Expansions with actual new mechanics and or major system updates (and appropriate new Civs), along with a slew of $5 - $10 content-only DLCs: Civs, Wonders, Leaders, etc. I also don't care if some or all of those secondary DLC require a certain XPacs in order to be played - although I realize for some people that would be a problem.

This approach, however, doesn't take into account the Mod community, and what impact this might have on the eventual (hopeful) release of the DLL code. I understand the need for that access in order to create more in depth fan made changes. I don't really know the best way to accommodate both of those 2 things (longer term Firaxis support vs. quicker Mod support).

 

[iammaxhailme]

I"m happy to buy big expansions for Civ 6. However... $40? That's too much. I buy them anyway, but really...

Also, why the fudge aren't they putting them on switch?

 

[mitsho]

Yeah, gathering storm was too expensive. I bought it nevertheless. But I still haven't bought Poland or Macedonia just because it doesn't entices me too.

That's why - reading this thread - I wonder if they could make a subscription model work? Because I don't like the paradox model either, there's no way of getting back into the game when you have time a year later or so. Too many DLCs to buy and read up on. Whereas in Civ, it's relatively easy. there are probably bundles of DLCs in CK 2, but it still makes you think, do I really need all of them?

 

[Stilgar08]

No. Just no. Paradox policy is terrible regarding DLC. I very much prefer FXS approach handing out decently sized XPs and not derail gameplay consistencies with hundreds of microtransactions... (I know this term is not exactly correct when talking paradox dlc but it seems like the same idea )
Concerning the neverending discussion of Civ7 vs. CiVI - I'm just happy that FXS sends signals I take as clear hints for further work on CiVI instead of a final farewell for this iteration. There's a lot to still improve or flesh out and to me CiVI already is the best civ to date.. Why start all over again with a new vanilla? I'll never get that wish - a bit masochistic IMO...