When, if at all, will you purchase Civ VII based on what you have seen so far?

[pokiehl]

I’m not sure, but I think they are referring to pre-order bonuses and the fact that they are already marketing two DLC packs in the Founder’s Edition, etc., before vanilla is even released. Also, visual assets, like fog of war tiles are also for sale this time around.

If it’s not predatory, it’s certainly aggressive, and, in my opinion, in bad taste. I understand that these practices are common throughout the video gaming industry in 2024, but it’s still ok for consumers to find this kind of DLC model objectionable.

Preorder bonuses have been with us since Civ 5, as have been deluxe editions and planned DLCs. I don’t understand how any of that is different this time around.

As for selling cosmetics: well, first, there is no solely cosmetic DLC. It’s looped in as bonuses with other DLC. Second, even if there were, what’s stopping you from just ignoring it?

My broader question is, why is it “in bad taste” for a videogame company to create additional optional content for you to buy? If they don’t do that, then we’d be complaining that they abandoned support of the game.

 

[gdr_willter]

I’m not sure, but I think they are referring to pre-order bonuses and the fact that they are already marketing two DLC packs in the Founder’s Edition, etc., before vanilla is even released. Also, visual assets, like fog of war tiles are also for sale this time around.

If it’s not predatory, it’s certainly aggressive, and, in my opinion, in bad taste. I understand that these practices are common throughout the video gaming industry in 2024, but it’s still ok for consumers to find this kind of DLC model objectionable.

Well, it's still less aggressive than the loot box or gacha to get premium Civs and Leaders...

 

[queenpea]

Preorder bonuses have been with us since Civ 5, as have been deluxe editions and planned DLCs. I don’t understand how any of that is different this time around.

As for selling cosmetics: well, first, there is no solely cosmetic DLC. It’s looped in as bonuses with other DLC. Second, even if there were, what’s stopping you from just ignoring it?

My broader question is, why is it “in bad taste” for a videogame company to create additional optional content for you to buy? If they don’t do that, then we’d be complaining that they abandoned support of the game.

I didn’t mean to say it was *different* — my point concedes thst it is common practice. But very often things that are common are in poor taste.

From my perspective, there is a “shut up and buy it” attitude which is prevalent throughout this forum. Especially when it comes to people who are uncomfortable with civ switching, a common refrain on this forum is that *very soon* we will have more civ options, and the “very soon” is referring to the bonus DLC content that is being marketed in the premium Founder’s edition, etc.

The “bad taste” is delivering a base game which is incomplete to many players, adding pressure to improve the player experience by spending more on what is essentially mandatory DLC.

Pre-order bonuses are a well known psychological trick that get you to pay for a game before it’s been reviewed or peer reviewed, etc.

Again, this isn’t just a Civ VII problem. Have you ever played The Sims? I’m also American and understand you have to make a buck. It’s fine. Again, it’s also fine to object to these practices.

 

[TreVor_ish]

From my perspective, there is a “shut up and buy it” attitude which is prevalent throughout this forum.

Or - "You can just play any previous version".

We are heading towards the point where gaming is always online subscription service for a license to rent, with servers only running for few years.

 

[Jeppetto]

The “bad taste” is delivering a base game which is incomplete to many players, adding pressure to improve the player experience by spending more on what is essentially mandatory DLC.

It feels "incomplete" because they focus on various continents/regions. We could have gotten more complete civ paths but then it would just be Europe and Eastern Asia, which people would likewise complain about. 30 Civilizations with this level of gameplay and visual asset detail is extremly far from "incomplete" game. It also features Natural Disasters, Golden/Dark Ages, Religion & Great Works systems variously barred behind Expansions in past two installments.

There are people who consume without question, yes, but alongside "shut up and consume" attitude there is also plenty of people who expect delusional amount of stuff in Base Game for a penny as If those artists and programmers worked for free - and who believe they would be able to do it better even though they never even saw a 3D model or a piece of code.

EDIT: And I mostly compare it to The Sims 4, whoch makes it relatively fine to me as far as monetization goes.

 

[TreVor_ish]

30 Civilizations with this level of gameplay and visual asset detail is extremly far from "incomplete" game.

Graphically - yes. But, gameplay wise - I feel like scale is getting smaller and smaller. CIVII feels more like a city builder then an empire builder. And I don't know if You played Against the Storm for instance, but that one has a much wider gameplay than what is presented in here.
I already mentioned companies like Hello Games that for over 8 years of support and adding content didn't charge a dime, or Larian that also doesn't release any DLC's and has no DRM's.

 

[queenpea]

It feels "incomplete" because they focus on various continents/regions. We could have gotten more complete civ paths but then it would just be Europe and Eastern Asia, which people would likewise complain about. 30 Civilizations with this level of gameplay and visual asset detail is extremly far from "incomplete" game. It also features Natural Disasters, Golden/Dark Ages, Religion & Great Works systems variously barred behind Expansions in past two installments.

There are people who consume without question, yes, but alongside "shut up and consume" attitude there is also plenty of people who expect delusional amount of stuff in Base Game for a penny as If those artists and programmers worked for free - and who believe they would be able to do it better even though they never even saw a 3D model or a piece of code.

EDIT: And I mostly compare it to The Sims 4, whoch makes it relatively fine to me as far as monetization goes.

I don't expect everything to be perfect for zero dollars.

I do think it is legitimate criticism, however, to say that the game is potentially launching with an inadequate amount of civilizations to make civ-switching palatable to a large number of players. Then, when this reasonable point is vocalized, it is often met with "soon there will be more civs in the game" (hey, pay more for a game you are currently unhappy with in order to make it marginally better).

I am going to buy the game, and I'll probably even buy the double-deluxe fancy version because I like sparkly objects. However, I think it's fair to ask, in a public forum, if this kind of pre-purchase DLC model is really what we should want from the gaming industry in 2024.

 

[pokiehl]

We are heading towards the point where gaming is always online subscription service for a license to rent, with servers only running for few years.

No we aren’t. This hyperbole doesn’t help what could be a reasonable conversation at all.

Continuing to develop a game post-launch with support by selling DLC is not predatory. Deluxe editions are not predatory. Pre-order bonuses are not psychological manipulation—they are an offer you can take to get a freebie in exchange for committing your money now. Selling things you don’t have to buy is not predatory. Take some personal responsibility if you find these standard practices so distasteful and just don’t buy the content. It’s all optional.

It’s not immortal for a business to make money by, you know, doing the thing it’s in business for.

What IS predatory? Loot boxes, taking advantage of gambling compulsions, lying to consumers…Nothing that Civ 7 is doing. And actually, nothing that the vast majority of the games industry is doing. You’re all zeroing in on practices from gacha publishers or whatever and assigning blame to every developer trying to stay in business.

 

[TreVor_ish]

No we aren’t. This hyperbole doesn’t help what could be a reasonable conversation at all.

Continuing to develop a game post-launch with support by selling DLC is not predatory. Deluxe editions are not predatory. Pre-order bonuses are not psychological manipulation—they are an offer you can take to get a freebie in exchange for commuting your money now. Selling things you don’t have to buy is not predatory. Take some personal responsibility if you find these standard practices so distasteful and just don’t buy the content. It’s all optional.

Sometimes the posts here make me wonder if you all think game companies are charities rather than businesses that exist to make money.

Anything is ok if You find enough people that are ok with it - goes both ways.

And the fact that a mere horse skin for World of Warcraft can earn more than StarCraft II just proves people are ok with it.

Maybe a hyperbole maybe not - time will tell.
Perhaps I was wrong to generalize so widely, but I mostly meant the biggest so called triple A publishers.
There will always be those passionate enough to make games even for free - Dwarf Fortress is a good example.

 

[pokiehl]

And the fact that a mere horse skin for World of Warcraft can earn more than StarCraft II just proves people are ok with it.

What is morally wrong with Blizzard selling cosmetic dlc? Did they force you to buy it? Does the game break without it? Did they lie to you about what comes with it?

There’s also this implicit “holier than thou” attitude towards the customers who buy it. That’s not fair and not warranted. People are allowed to have different tastes and spend their money how they please.

I am genuinely wondering what is ethically wrong with a business selling something that you don’t want to buy. Is McDonald’s evil because they sell food I don’t want?

 

[queenpea]

No we aren’t. This hyperbole doesn’t help what could be a reasonable conversation at all.

Continuing to develop a game post-launch with support by selling DLC is not predatory. Deluxe editions are not predatory. Pre-order bonuses are not psychological manipulation—they are an offer you can take to get a freebie in exchange for committing your money now. Selling things you don’t have to buy is not predatory. Take some personal responsibility if you find these standard practices so distasteful and just don’t buy the content. It’s all optional.

It’s not immortal for a business to make money by, you know, doing the thing it’s in business for.

What IS predatory? Loot boxes, taking advantage of gambling compulsions, lying to consumers…Nothing that Civ 7 is doing. And actually, nothing that the vast majority of the games industry is doing. You’re all zeroing in on practices from gacha publishers or whatever and assigning blame to every developer trying to stay in business.

That's a fine opinion to have, and I agree with a lot of it. However, we aren't talking about post-launch DLC in this situation.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well, it's still less aggressive than the loot box or gacha to get premium Civs and Leaders...

Considering the price of the weaker lootbox, which is 1$, and that you have 1 chance on 30 to loot a new civ, that doesn't make the loot boxes model more expensive than the ultra-deluxe mad crazy packs which are priced 500$. So I don't get why you're complaining...

 

[TreVor_ish]

What is morally wrong with Blizzard selling cosmetic dlc? Did they force you to buy it? Does the game break without it? Did they lie to you about what comes with it?

There’s also this implicit “holier than thou” attitude towards the customers who buy it. That’s not fair and not warranted. People are allowed to have different tastes and spend their money how they please.

I am genuinely wondering what is ethically wrong with a business selling something that you don’t want to buy. Is McDonald’s evil because they sell food I don’t want?

Nothing. No. No. No.
There is this implicit "delusional expectancy" attitude towards the customers that would like to buy something more complete with wider gameplay. That's also not warranted.
People are allowed to have different tastes and spend their money on meme coins, used bath water, lootboxes or any DLC's they please.
I think it is ethically wrong to promote DLC's before launch that will be available just a few weeks after the game. McDonald's is not evil for selling food I don't want.

 

[pokiehl]

Nothing. No. No. No.
There is this implicit "delusional expectancy" attitude towards the customers that would like to buy something more complete with wider gameplay. That's also not warranted.
People are allowed to have different tastes and spend their money on meme coins, used bath water, lootboxes or any DLC's they please.

I must confess I'm confused about the purpose of bringing that point up in the first place then.

I think it is ethically wrong to promote DLC's before launch that will be available just a few weeks after the game. McDonald's is not evil for selling food I don't want.

The game comes out in a couple months, so many of us may assume it's essentially complete, but I think what we're seeing tells a different story. The latest first look video had a missing banner icon for Ming, we see a lot of little glitches, there were debug messages on the last livestream, and so on. I'm actually surprised at how much of a WIP the game seems to be, at least compared to Civ 6 in its runup to release.

They're clearly going to be working on this game up until very close to release. Accordingly, the DLC is definitely not complete, and thus they aren't holding anything back that's ready for release to sell you for later.

 

[ombak]

That's a fine opinion to have, and I agree with a lot of it. However, we aren't talking about post-launch DLC in this situation.

Assuming that the DLC announced now cannot be ready for launch, what would your prefer? Not announcing it until after launch (and how long would it be appropriate to wait for that announcement), or delaying the launch to include DLC?

 

[queenpea]

Assuming that the DLC announced now cannot be ready for launch, what would your prefer? Not announcing it until after launch (and how long would it be appropriate to wait for that announcement), or delaying the launch to include DLC?

I think delaying the game by two months or however long is needed in order to include more civilizations at launch would only increase goodwill among the player base.

I understand this would affect profitability, but that is the trade off.

It also wouldn’t be the first time that a game launch was delayed.

 

[chaosprophet]

From my perspective, there is a “shut up and buy it” attitude which is prevalent throughout this forum. Especially when it comes to people who are uncomfortable with civ switching, a common refrain on this forum is that *very soon* we will have more civ options, and the “very soon” is referring to the bonus DLC content that is being marketed in the premium Founder’s edition, etc.

I don't see that at all. People discuss about everything we know, and if some says they find X is negative, others may go and say they think that isn't the case. But there isn't any implication there that the people who are against it should just buy it.

The closest I can think of, is that if people are advocating for the game to drop ages / civ switching now, which isn't going to happen as the game is near release and it is a core concept of the game, to the point where it would be hard to even mod to not have it in a way where the game works well (instead of just ignoring all the consequences of just having civs with their bonuses on specific part of the game, etc). If age switching end up being terrible for the game, then chances are higher they drop Civ 7 early and starting work on 8 than they dropping it with a future update. So in that sense I would tell someone who wants them to take it out that would be better for them to not buy it as that is very unlikely to happen.

I do think it is legitimate criticism, however, to say that the game is potentially launching with an inadequate amount of civilizations to make civ-switching palatable to a large number of players. Then, when this reasonable point is vocalized, it is often met with "soon there will be more civs in the game" (hey, pay more for a game you are currently unhappy with in order to make it marginally better).

There will be more DLCs soon increasing the roster, we already know that 8 will be added in the near future, and we should expect more with time. But again, I don't see people arguing that means one shouldn't dislike it and because there will be more in the near future one should shut up and just buy the game. For people where the base game number isn't acceptable, they can always wait until the game has enough civs for them to them consider buying.

Basically, push back like arguing that even if 10 per age will make it a smaller amount per age than most would like it still reasonable for them to release the game with 30 civs when it comes to all their stuff from mechanics to art assets, isn't people saying then you must go and buy it, or anything like that.

 

[pokiehl]

I think delaying the game by two months or however long is needed in order to include more civilizations at launch would only increase goodwill among the player base.

I understand this would affect profitability, but that is the trade off.

It also wouldn’t be the first time that a game launch was delayed.

I would be extremely annoyed if they did that. I want to play the game in February; I don't care if it's missing 4 civs. Realistically at that point they may as well just say the DLC will be free, and then we're back at square 1 of this conversation.

 

[queenpea]

I would be extremely annoyed if they did that. I want to play the game in February; I don't care if it's missing 4 civs. Realistically at that point they may as well just say the DLC will be free, and then we're back at square 1 of this conversation.

Other studios have done this (delaying launch and refunding DLC), so it wouldn’t be extremely unusual.

I’m not advocating for this. So far it doesn’t seem that they are behind schedule, and I don’t expect this, but it’s an option.

I’m generally in favor of games being released when they are ready and only when they are ready.

 

[queenpea]

There will be more DLCs soon increasing the roster, we already know that 8 will be added in the near future, and we should expect more with time. But again, I don't see people arguing that means one shouldn't dislike it and because there will be more in the near future one should shut up and just buy the game. For people where the base game number isn't acceptable, they can always wait until the game has enough civs for them to them consider buying.

It’s more that when someone posts that the game isn’t launching with enough civs per age, they are incessantly reminded that we will have an additional 8 “in the near future.” But the eight additional civs are not coming from Santa. They require additional coin.

It’s valid to look at the purchase price and then conclude that the game experience at launch may not make it worth it to them as a player.

The immediate post launch DLC model allows the publisher to keep the base game price down, understanding that there is more money to be made from players who are immediately ready to open their wallets for a more complete experience.