Would you want Civ 6 to follow the paradox model?

[Krajzen]

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

Okay I'll elaborate. Generally I don't think paradox dlc model would work out for civ franchise, however I think civ5 model could be greatly upgraded.
- Three expansions instead of two (civ5 community patches and some mods showed there was a lot things begging to be expanded, civ5 development cycle was really cut too early)
- DLCs containing new civs, scenarios, leaders and wonders being released for longer period than civ5 (where they stopped appearing after less than a year after release).

Civ6 is going to have a lot of perfect standalone DLC material (aforementioned civs and stuff) without need of messing with core mechanics outside of free patches and major expansions.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There's a big problem with many expansions. The second expansion comes very late in the game lifecycle and it doesn't get enough patching/tweaking. Having third expansion would likely make the situation even worse.

Honestly, I'd prefer 1 solid expansion in the middle of the game lifecycle and some significant amount of patches coming later and accompanied with some DLC.

 

[Xen]

There's a big problem with many expansions. The second expansion comes very late in the game lifecycle and it doesn't get enough patching/tweaking. Having third expansion would likely make the situation even worse.

Honestly, I'd prefer 1 solid expansion in the middle of the game lifecycle and some significant amount of patches coming later and accompanied with some DLC.

The workers for patches need pay to come from somewhere...

 

[Hutchy27]

I voted for strongly opposed as I would deem Paradox's approach to it as how not to do DLC. I would dread to see Firaxis go down the same route.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The workers for patches need pay to come from somewhere...

Selling DLC brings more money per amount of work than selling expansions and selling expansions - more than selling a game. So, having 1 expansion and more DLC afterwards (using game mechanics from the expansion) would pay for patches.

 

[esoba]

There's a big problem with many expansions. The second expansion comes very late in the game lifecycle and it doesn't get enough patching/tweaking. Having third expansion would likely make the situation even worse.

Honestly, I'd prefer 1 solid expansion in the middle of the game lifecycle and some significant amount of patches coming later and accompanied with some DLC.

I think this assumes the same life cycle. Here's an easy fix, extend the life cycle of the game so that the final expansion has some time before major work begins on the next, or have dedicated resources set aside for at least a couple major patches post the final expansion. Just 1 is too few in my opinion. Two is even a little light, but if they are major enough I can live with it. I would ultimately like to see 3 with lots of DLC civs & leaders.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think this assumes the same life cycle. Here's an easy fix, extend the life cycle of the game so that the final expansion has some time before major work begins on the next, or have dedicated resources set aside for at least a couple major patches post the final expansion. Just 1 is too few in my opinion. Two is even a little light, but if they are major enough I can live with it. I would ultimately like to see 3 with lots of DLC civs & leaders.

You can't ride the dead horse forever. People get tired of the same game.

Civ5 was a brilliant exception from the rule, but you can't rely on miracles. Even though Civ5 was able to get a year of more DLCs/patches, that was unpredictable and the team was already assigned to Civ6.

 

[Xen]

Selling DLC brings more money per amount of work than selling expansions and selling expansions - more than selling a game. So, having 1 expansion and more DLC afterwards (using game mechanics from the expansion) would pay for patches.

But that's The Paradox model...

 

[stealth_nsk]

But that's The Paradox model...

The Paradox model involves gameplay DLC. Civ (and, for example, Total War) model involves content DLC, which don't change game mechanics. That's the difference. Other than that - all of those companies have DLCs.

 

[esoba]

You can't ride the dead horse forever. People get tired of the same game.

Civ5 was a brilliant exception from the rule, but you can't rely on miracles. Even though Civ5 was able to get a year of more DLCs/patches, that was unpredictable and the team was already assigned to Civ6.

True enough. Although I would say that overall WoW is doing pretty well 12 years later, so that horse is still getting ridden pretty hard. If expansions significantly add to the game in a way that reinvents it, then it is possible to have an extra expansion. Heck I believe CiV did a great job with their expansions doing just that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

True enough. Although I would say that overall WoW is doing pretty well 12 years later, so that horse is still getting ridden pretty hard. If expansions significantly add to the game in a way that reinvents it, then it is possible to have an extra expansion. Heck I believe CiV did a great job with their expansions doing just that.

WoW is MMORPG. WoW is Blizzard MMORPG. And it's a miracle too. For such game 12 years are possible. Oh, and it's pretty good at riding dead horses

Spoiler :

 

[Ikael]

I like the old Firaxis approach better: Two big expansions that not only add content (new civs, new units) but also adds gameplay mechanics that further refine and perfect the game. Brave New World turned the most mediocre civ entry yet (vainilla Civ 5) into a wonderful game.

 

[Red Pearl]

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.

All of the smaller EU4 expansions introduce new game play mechanics. Other then the random new world all the changes to the land come with the free patch.

 

[Xen]

All of the smaller EU4 expansions introduce new game play mechanics. Other then the random new world all the changes to the land come with the free patch.

I actually had the cosmetic DLCs for Crusader kings in mind, as in the CK subforum on paradox the devs are really upfront about how thier dev cycle works for dlc-expansion-dlc

 

[Xen]

The Paradox model involves gameplay DLC. Civ (and, for example, Total War) model involves content DLC, which don't change game mechanics. That's the difference. Other than that - all of those companies have DLCs.

What exactly is the difference between dlc and an expansion with no physical presence? It seems like semantics to me.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What exactly is the difference between dlc and an expansion with no physical presence? It seems like semantics to me.

It's not strict difference, but very noticeable. If the addition is sold for $20 and players are happy to pay the price, that's an expansion

Another definition is - DLC is normally about just 1 thing. 1 civilization, or 1 civilization with scenario about it, or 1 gameplay mechanics. Expansion has a lot of different content barely connected together.

So, in general if you have very few gameplay-changing additions AND conflicts between them are solved (i.e. by including all gameplay mechanics from all previous additions, like it was with BNW) - that's good.

 

[Zaarin]

Short answer: no. Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. With all due respect to Paradox, I don't find grand strategy anywhere near as enjoyable as 4x, and their model of tacking on millions of cosmetic DLC with the occasional actual content DLC is not something I want to see in Civ. Don't get me wrong, I want as many civ DLCs as Firaxis is willing to throw at me; what I don't want is "New hats for your exploration units! $5!"

 

[LDiCesare]

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.

YMMV.
Stellaris is still great in the beginning, and still worthless from the mid-game onward imo.
They haven't fixed the sectors ai, so unless you mod the game, it's (imo again, but I'm not alone to think that) almost unplayable.

The paradox model is bad for four reasons:
1) It ends up being very expensive if you want the full experience

This. I also agree with the other reasons, but really. I'm never going to pay for an extra civ or map pack, ever.

I know I can't expect it, but I want an Illwinter model. Free expansions with additional content. Then make a new release if you want to change the game. Big expansion packs work for that too.

 

[SMcM]

Okay I'll elaborate. Generally I don't think paradox dlc model would work out for civ franchise, however I think civ5 model could be greatly upgraded.
- Three expansions instead of two (civ5 community patches and some mods showed there was a lot things begging to be expanded, civ5 development cycle was really cut too early)
- DLCs containing new civs, scenarios, leaders and wonders being released for longer period than civ5 (where they stopped appearing after less than a year after release).

Civ6 is going to have a lot of perfect standalone DLC material (aforementioned civs and stuff) without need of messing with core mechanics outside of free patches and major expansions.

Or they could just get it right with the first two expansions.

 

[Bibor]

I'm not sure if the poll asks if the Paradox model is good/bad in general or when applied to civ.

The Paradox model works well for their own games, but it would not be good for civilization.

As other people pointed out here, it works really well for sandbox games.
But Civ is also competetive as there are clear victory conditions.

Just look at what EU4 patches and DLCs did to EU4 achievements: some are impossibly hard with one DLC or patch, others laughably easy with other DLCs and patches.