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

[Evolena]

The game will be feature-ready. Civs and Leaders number are "just" content that can be shipped separately.

 

[queenpea]

The game will be feature-ready. Civs and Leaders number are "just" content that can be shipped separately.

By shipped, you mean purchased. I agree with you that there seems to be no new gameplay in the two DLC packs announced so far, which makes this kind of “flavor pack” DLC, to borrow the term from Paradox, more easy to produce and deliver, making the company more money.

In short, a more aggressive DLC strategy.

 

[gdr_willter]

Honestly, the studios have to put the price of games way higher regarding the development costs. The DLC model, pre-order marketing, and even F2P and loot boxes, all of these are just the alternatives of the increase of the base price.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

If you're sceptical of the whole switching idea, and feel that it needs a lot of civs to work, then you're obviously far more likely to be suspicious of early DLC and the number of launch civs. I'm not sure the criticism is really about the monetisation strategy in many cases.

There are definitely things that annoy me about it, but I don't think the Civ strategy is all that bad, all told, and certainly not predatory. But it's one of those things that will always generate some criticism, very hard to get it right. I play a lot of GT7 and people are endlessly complaining about the free updates because they want more content, and would happily pay for it. Damned if you do and damned it you don't!

 

[queenpea]

Honestly, the studios have to put the price of games way higher regarding the development costs. The DLC model, pre-order marketing, and even F2P and loot boxes, all of these are just the alternatives of the increase of the base price.

And that’s totally fair. I just think it’s also fair for customers to look at the money required for however they define a “full experience” and

 

[gdr_willter]

And that’s totally fair. I just think it’s also fair for customers to look at the money required for however they define a “full experience” and

Well, the most of critics will still be upset anyway when if they have just one choice, $130 for "Civ 7" which contains the whole Founders Edition contents... regardless it worth or not.

 

[queenpea]

Well, the most of critics will still be upset anyway when if they have just one choice, $130 for "Civ 7" which contains the whole Founders Edition contents... regardless it worth or not.

Sure, but that’s not how the economics of that would work.

 

[UWHabs]

Well, the most of critics will still be upset anyway when if they have just one choice, $130 for "Civ 7" which contains the whole Founders Edition contents... regardless it worth or not.

Yeah, if the game only launched in May (or September), where the cheapest option was 100$ (or 130$), and it came with those extra 4 (8) civs from the Deluxe (Founders) edition, people would complain about that too even if there was no additional DLC in the near future after that. There's still too many of us who grew up in the 90s when games cost 40$, and DLC didn't exist as a concept. But that universe doesn't exist anymore, so we're left with either a 70$ "incomplete" game, or we're spending 100+ on it.

Sure, but that’s not how the economics of that would work.

It kind of is, though? Like, the devs very clearly are not shoving those civs off on DLC only because they're not ready? Had they delayed the game launch by 4 or 8 months to finish those civs they would surely not be offering it at the base price that it's going for. I'd guess the whole reason those civs are punted to DLC is so that they can come out with a "cheaper" base version. OK, maybe it would be 95 instead of 100 (or 125 instead of 130), but you're not simply delaying things, adding more content, and still getting it for the cheaper price. If anything it might come out more, because there's even more people that would be priced out and simply not even get the base game, never mind that when you delay it to the next quarter or next fiscal year, the team maybe needs an extra loan to keep the office lights on too.

 

[queenpea]

Yeah, if the game only launched in May (or September), where the cheapest option was 100$ (or 130$), and it came with those extra 4 (8) civs from the Deluxe (Founders) edition, people would complain about that too even if there was no additional DLC in the near future after that. There's still too many of us who grew up in the 90s when games cost 40$, and DLC didn't exist as a concept. But that universe doesn't exist anymore, so we're left with either a 70$ "incomplete" game, or we're spending 100+ on it.


It kind of is, though? Like, the devs very clearly are not shoving those civs off on DLC only because they're not ready? Had they delayed the game launch by 4 or 8 months to finish those civs they would surely not be offering it at the base price that it's going for. I'd guess the whole reason those civs are punted to DLC is so that they can come out with a "cheaper" base version. OK, maybe it would be 95 instead of 100 (or 125 instead of 130), but you're not simply delaying things, adding more content, and still getting it for the cheaper price. If anything it might come out more, because there's even more people that would be priced out and simply not even get the base game, never mind that when you delay it to the next quarter or next fiscal year, the team maybe needs an extra loan to keep the office lights on too.

Maybe I should draw a chart.

It wouldn’t be $130 because more people buy the base game than the premium edition so total revenue would increase. They wouldn’t have to charge $130 to hit their targets.

Yes, the base price would be more expansive, but it wouldn’t be equivalent to the premium that is being offered to the most dedicated fans, which is a smaller section of the player base.

In the current situation you have people paying inflated prices for promised future DLC, fog of war tiles, and to play the game five days early.

 

[gdr_willter]

I dare to say, the "base game" is rather the "marketing term" in my opinion.

We know there are...

Base Game, Shawnee Pack, Deluxe Edition, Founders Edition

but we can call them as...

Early Accessible Cheapest Edition, At Least Needed Pack, Reduced Edition, Base Game

There is technically no difference between both way. We just feel the former one is better. That's all.

 

[queenpea]

I dare to say, the "base game" is rather the "marketing term" in my opinion.

We know there are...

but we can call them as...


There is technically no difference between both way. We just feel the former one is better. That's all.

Yes, exactly

 

[ombak]

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.

The obvious issue with a delay in this scenario is that by the time the new release date comes around, there could be more DLC ready to be announced. Should they then delay again or avoid announcing those DLC?

My point is, I don't think this is entirely due to profit motive. To be clear, I think I'm overall on your side. I would like to see an industry less focused on squeezing every penny out of the player and more focused on quality. I think Civilization is on the right side of that compared to many other companies, but I would love to see what they would be like if the overall model were more in line with how we want things.

Having said that, I think the model of continuous releases would still be a thing. As long as the company or dev team has a well-oiled pipelined, with producers who are good at herding cats, and end of the production line teams that can get their work in on time, a game like Civ is the kind that absolutely should be seeing small updates constantly and I can't imagine many would be free under a less greedy but still for profit model. I suppose though that in that case the goodwill might not be harmed as much by the constant release since the overall feeling would be more positive.

 

[Timothy001]

Hoping for Christmas, otherwise hopefully early Birthday

 

[CivLuvah]

It really depends on what people say on release or a few months after release - which isn't really one of the options above lol

 

[AriochIV]

Someone either can't read or is just making up things to be upset about. If you've pre-ordered any version of the game, you get the Shawnee pack at no additional cost.

Pre-ordering Sid Meier's Civilization VII Standard Edition before February 11, 2025 grants you access to the Tecumseh and Shawnee Pack.* The Tecumseh and Shawnee Pack is included in the Deluxe Edition and Founders Edition.

 

[canadamufc]

I don't think you actually pay more.

But I still believe this is a predatory model. FOMO is awful, and I don't get why people continue to defend it.

 

[gdr_willter]

I don't think you actually pay more.

But I still believe this is a predatory model. FOMO is awful, and I don't get why people continue to defend it.

As long as I know, every Civ game with DLCs finally released its Complete Edition including all of the contents within the title, so I'm not worried about the inaccessible contents. And the only time-limited contents of Civ 7 is the Founders Contents Pack for now, and it only contains 2 persona Leaders and some decorations. You can buy the Deluxe Edition and the Right to Rule Collection to get all the other Civ 7 contents anytime. If you want to say those 2 personas are too much FOMO stuffs... okay, you can say it.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I don't think you actually pay more.

But I still believe this is a predatory model. FOMO is awful, and I don't get why people continue to defend it.

I also find preorder bonuses, and the mild FOMO they induce, a bit irritating. I would consider it predatory if taken to the extreme but we're talking about one civ and one leader.

Making up prices and using this to fuel some overblown outrage about the whole thing is just incredibly silly. Yes, these bonuses are a bit annoying, but it's not some incredibly important ethical hill on which we must make our last stand against corporate greed.

Let's just be sensible about it eh?

 

[AriochIV]

Nowhere in the description of the various editions' content is the word "exclusive" used; there's no promise that it will never be available anywhere else. Take that how you will.

 

[Mathalamus]

I am very unlikely to buy it. it doesnt feel like civilization to me, and it hasnt since the 4th game. many people will call it "evolution" but i think they missed the point. it should have been more complicated over time. more grand in scale. harder to learn, play, and so on. its a game of civilizations over thousands of years. it should be among the most complicated games anywhere.