Would you want Civ 6 to follow the paradox model?

[Xen]

To clarify, Paradox sets up a base vanilla game, and then gradually expands it with alternating small/big expansions. Smaller expabsions generally just work on one specific geographic area, and don't introduce new game play mechanics, but the big expansions do.

In civ terms I think itz be tuebdifference between giving a few new civs ala carte/ in a scenario pack, and more classic expansions with new game features.

The pros of the system is that paradox games have a long life span of active development and evolution, and a lot of love for more minor areas of the world has been funded through that model both in and out of European areas.

You also get control over exactly what is in your game, in terms of features that you feel are worth paying for.

The con is that by the end of the lifespan to have a “complete” game is expensive unless you're willing to wait for bundles or sales.

I’d imaginw thay of civ6 multiplayer is handled loke civ5 itll screw up mp alot.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Civ games already have small DLC and large expansions.

Other than this, I wouldn't want anything from Paradox games in Civs. ESPECIALLY the ability to choose particular features. Civ is a game and it has such interesting thing as game balance, so you can't just add/remove features from it.

 

[Xen]

I hated how short the dlc lifespan of civ5 was though. Its tje biggest argument in favor of a Paradox style model.

 

[mzprox]

2 major expansion is better than dozens of dlc imo. They could learn other things from paradox games though.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

a really complete and polished game at release, some free patches for adjustments and maybe small content additions, an expansion a year later or more if solid ideas for it. Not sure why a second expansion would then be needed. I don't really like the idea of DLC, it's hard to justify that stuff unless there is no expansion.

 

[Krajzen]

I'd like for civ6 to have more often DLCs, or three major expansions instead of two.

 

[esoba]

There are definitely positives and negatives to the Paradox model, but one thing I absolutely love is the amount of attention on improving a game. Stellaris is a pretty good example. The initial release left much to desire, but since then they have been doing great at fleshing out things and improving things. While Civ does this, it isn't nearly as frequent.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

If the initial release leaves a lot to desire, that's a huge problem in the first place and why you shouldn't need to pay DLCs to get the game in a state it should have been in in the first place.. the game should be released in a state of completeness and polish, the "DLCs" already included. Games are expansive enough seriously^^ plus it's a lot better if everybody is playing the same game.

With this model of endless DLCs and expansions you are separating those of the hardcore fans (who will also actually buy everything) from the rest of the players who will probably not buy all these since they play many other games. That's one reason why it's hard to justify selling more than just one expansion, it's not good for the game and its community. (I never bought an expansion for a civ game)

Maybe it would even be ideal to just release any extra content or expansion for free to all players, and just function on a donation system after the initial buy^^ this way you avoid changing the name of the game or adding weird titles to it, and you avoid splitting your player base between different versions, plus you get max respect from the players for not trying hard at their wallet^^

 

[rastak]

Paradox can do that because their games are never balanced. Really, they are just sandboxes. Players set their own goals, even Stellaris is severly lacking in win conditions and balance. Civ is much much more of a traditional strategy game and taking that approach would make it far more likely to become unbalanced than the "larger expansion" model where they can really have time to test.

 

[GauntZero]

2 big expansions are perfect for CIV I think - wouldnt change that.

"Small DLC" on the other hands, especially new civilizations & leaders (I dont care about scenarios or maps at all) should be more regular in my opinion, lets say 1 per month, alternating new civ and new leader (with maybe a scenario or map in addition here and there, but no DLC for map/scenario only).

 

[esoba]

If the initial release leaves a lot to desire, that's a huge problem in the first place and why you shouldn't need to pay DLCs to get the game in a state it should have been in in the first place.. the game should be released in a state of completeness and polish, the "DLCs" already included. Games are expansive enough seriously^^ plus it's a lot better if everybody is playing the same game.

While I agree in principle. That cat got out of the bag a long time ago and it isn't getting put back in. The idea of a completely finished and polished base game just doesn't happen anymore no matter how much we wish it would.

 

[Homusubi]

As a modder who also mods Paradox games, PLEASE NO. We'd end up having to spend a significant proportion of every month just updating our mods for the latest minor patch.

Actually, having this in Civ would be worse, because Civ DLCs are more likely than Paradox DLCs to require separate DLC/non-DLC versions of mods, thus exponentially increasing the amount of work required just to stop people from complaining.

 

[Ryika]

Paradox can do that because their games are never balanced. Really, they are just sandboxes. Players set their own goals, even Stellaris is severly lacking in win conditions and balance. Civ is much much more of a traditional strategy game and taking that approach would make it far more likely to become unbalanced than the "larger expansion" model where they can really have time to test.

Yeah, adding stuff to the game that actually matters and is not just some gimmick is bound to create imbalances. You can't balance for all combinations at the same time, so in the end if you want a balanced experience you have to have all the tiny dlcs because that's what will be at the center of the attention.

I really wouldn't want that.

Civs, Leaders, Scenarios, mapscripts... that's the stuff that can be stacked without creating too many problems. That's what I would want them to work on between expansion packs.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

While I agree in principle. That cat got out of the bag a long time ago and it isn't getting put back in. The idea of a completely finished and polished base game just doesn't happen anymore no matter how much we wish it would.

that's why often, I just download a game to try it, find that its not good enough, stop playing really fast and never buy it (what I did with Civ 5 I think)

any company that wants to do differently can do it, they just need to decide to stop bad business. You don't necessarily need to just multiply your profits ever further, who needs 100M when you already have 50, that's useless, money is not the end lol nor do you need infinite amounts to make the greatest games.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Extra Civs as DLC is fantastic. We all want more, many more than the game really needs.

The question is, how much is too much? Would you buy 10 extra Civs? 20? 50?

When does a Civ, priced around 5€, become a bad investment due to diminishing returns (aka enjoyment/expected play time) kick in for you?

 

[esoba]

Extra Civs as DLC is fantastic. We all want more, many more than the game really needs.

The question is, how much is too much? Would you buy 10 extra Civs? 20? 50?

When does a Civ, priced around 5€, become a bad investment due to diminishing returns (aka enjoyment/expected play time) kick in for you?

I may be a minority, but I cannot imagine a number where I would stop buying them, even if I knew I wouldn't play them frequently. I would just think they would be a great computer opponent to play against. As silly as it may seem to others I could see myself buying even 50 extra civs over the course of the game's lifetime and not batting an eye.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Extra Civs as DLC is fantastic. We all want more, many more than the game really needs.

The question is, how much is too much? Would you buy 10 extra Civs? 20? 50?

When does a Civ, priced around 5€, become a bad investment due to diminishing returns (aka enjoyment/expected play time) kick in for you?

That's why developers will also have DLC with additional leaders, plus expansions. That's enough for civ games to have longer lifespan than Paradox games.

And I have a suspicion what adapting spoiled sales model could cause a reputation hit, which will cost more than direct money from "gameplay" DLC.

 

[cazaderonus]

Nope. It ends up being confusing and it breaks the community fueled events such as gotm, or our local challenge lineups because veryone has different versions of the game.

But, i wouldnt be against CiVI getting 3 expansions instead of 2

 

[Leathaface]

I prefer the current version since it works so well.

 

[JtW]

Hell no. The influx of DLC is what makes me give up on most PDX titles. I am a completist and end up not playing when I can't afford all the DLC.