Third XP: Yay or Nay?

[Locutus]

Originally posted by vee4473
I'mnot a lawyer, but what would stop Firaxis from developing a SMAC 2 in spirit but using a different name? Obviously they would need renamed factions, leaders etc., but couldn't they do it if they wanted?

I'm not sure how nit picky copyright law is with regards to video games so who knows how much would need to be changed.

Everything is possible, but they can be sure to expect a lawsuit over that and the last thing Take-Two needs is another lawsuit...

Originally posted by lockstep
Can't Take-Two buy only SMAC's rights from EA? (Assuming Firaxis could make a hypothetical SMAC2 a far bigger success than any other developer EA might choose, a deal advantageous for both Take-Two and EA should be possible.)

Again, everything is possible but that's almost unprecedented in the gaming industry's history. If SMAC was a profitable enough license to make a sequel for, EA would've made one by now. They wouldn't sell it off to Take-Two to let them cash in on it.

It all comes down to money: if a SMAC2 in any form would've been seen by EA or Take-Two (or Atari before them) as a profitable venture they would've made it a long time ago. But TBS is a very niche market, it seems only Civ is a big enough title to make enough money to please publishers like EA or Take-Two. Big publishers want their developers to work on the next Sims/Warcraft/GTA, not the next Call to Power or SMAC... Nothing is impossible, but don't hold your breath.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Locutus
If SMAC was a profitable enough license to make a sequel for, EA would've made one by now. They wouldn't sell it off to Take-Two to let them cash in on it.

Not if SMAC2 would be profitable enough if - and only if - developed by Firaxis and provided with the "Sid Meier" brand.

TBS is a very niche market, it seems only Civ is a big enough title to make enough money to please publishers like EA or Take-Two. Big publishers want their developers to work on the next Sims/Warcraft/GTA, not the next Call to Power or SMAC...

Sad but true. Anyhow, I'd rather like to see Colonization 2 than SMAC2.

[Ming]

If BtS makes "BIG MONEY", you can probably count on yet another xp. That will be the sole determining point, as it is in most things

[Kuciwalker]

So, don't buy it?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So, don't buy it?

Yeah, right.

[Shrapnel12]

Whether the next product is another XP to Civ IV or Civ V, I'd like to see more emphasis on diplomacy and international politics. Poor diplomacy features is something that I think all Civ type games suffer from. Maybe that's just because AI is not advanced enough but anything would be better then it is now. The feature I hate worse of all in Civ IV is the diplomacy. Even the features it has, you can't use all of them because it's so hard to get a good enough relation with a country that all options won't be in the red. Has anyone ever managed to get an AI civ to voluntarily give up one of it's cities no mater how threatened they are or how much they love you? And I'm so tired of putting a lot of effort into spreading my religion, but then the civ won't convert because they don't like me enough (even if they are pleased with me).

[jkp1187]

At this point, I don't see much that could be improved with the basic interface (unlike Civ III,) so I'm inclined to favor a new expansion pack.

Heck, if they just sold a $10.00 downloadable pack that just added more civs to the basic game without all that tedious mucking about in the MODS folder, I'd buy that.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Locutus


So rather than adding 10 new civs and 6 new leaders you might reverse it for XP3: a lot of new leaders and only a handful of new civs.

It really amazes me how people want to pay for new leaders and Civs.

[wodan11]

The attraction of SMAC was fundamentally the AI personalities. That's something that an XP can add, that we don't currently get, not really. I mean seriously, Abe Lincoln is nice and all, but it would be reasonable for him to always be militaristic against civs running Slavery. But I daresay BtS won't provide that.

Wodan

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Whether the next product is another XP to Civ IV or Civ V, I'd like to see more emphasis on diplomacy and international politics. Poor diplomacy features is something that I think all Civ type games suffer from. Maybe that's just because AI is not advanced enough but anything would be better then it is now. The feature I hate worse of all in Civ IV is the diplomacy. Even the features it has, you can't use all of them because it's so hard to get a good enough relation with a country that all options won't be in the red. Has anyone ever managed to get an AI civ to voluntarily give up one of it's cities no mater how threatened they are or how much they love you? And I'm so tired of putting a lot of effort into spreading my religion, but then the civ won't convert because they don't like me enough (even if they are pleased with me).

Your version of improved diplomacy would just be another exploit for the player!

Improved AI diplomacy based on "personal relationships" would also be just an invitation for a player to backstab them. The only way around it (that I can see) would be to restrict the player from declaring war on an AI with a favorable diplo rating, and players wouldn't stand for it -- unless it was well marketed & explained beforehand. Perhaps a mod could pioneer the effort.

[DanQ]

This question seems a bit premature to me.

Sure, a lot of information has been disclosed in the last few weeks about Beyond the Sword but there's more to be revealed... and ultimately discovered by actually playing it! So give not just more time for more information to "get out there", but more importantly give yourself a chance to play BtS yourself. Decide in your own mind if there are additions or other modifications that you would like to see; then, "add them up" to analyze whether or not that would constitute enough material for another XP. Perhaps a MOD Pack or two would redress your list quite or even more nicely.

By no means is the above the only consideration in whether or not to support a third CivIV expansion, but it's a critical one that seems to be missing or otherwise neglected in some people's analysis ATM.

[Kuciwalker]

Sure, a lot of information has been disclosed in the last few weeks about Beyond the Sword but there's more to be revealed... and ultimately discovered by actually playing it! So give not just more time for more information to "get out there", but more importantly give yourself a chance to play BtS yourself.

Great suggestion!

[Willem]

Originally posted by jbp26


I think this is the most likely.

No, it's the least likely. EA holds the rights to the SMAC title and I doubt very much if Take-Two is in a financial position right now to buy it from them. Unless the company gets bought out by EA, we won't be seeing a SMAC2 anytime soon.

[Willem]

Originally posted by lockstep


Can't Take-Two buy only SMAC's rights from EA? (Assuming Firaxis could make a hypothetical SMAC2 a far bigger success than any other developer EA might choose, a deal advantageous for both Take-Two and EA should be possible.)

Take-Two is broke, they're letting go of staff and doing some other restructuring to save money here and there. I doubt that they'd be able to afford to buy the rights from EA right now, and EA would no doubt be asking an arm and a leg for it.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Has anyone ever managed to get an AI civ to voluntarily give up one of it's cities no mater how threatened they are or how much they love you? And I'm so tired of putting a lot of effort into spreading my religion, but then the civ won't convert because they don't like me enough (even if they are pleased with me).

I once offered a straight swap of cities (one of my cities threatened by their culture for one of their cities threatened by my culture) and was rebuffed. The city I was offering was bigger and probably better developed, too. The only times I've ever gotten cities from the AI are as a condition for a peace treaty. And those cities were uniformly small and crappy and usually polar.

It would be interesting to see if some modwork could be done to improve this mechanism. Either a longer peace treaty would result from the extorting of a city or cities, or (better) a huge reputational hit from going to war with a civ you already extracted major concessions from.

(e.g. "You invaded a nation that had already acceded to your demands! -8 ")

In my current game I foolishly paid Mansa Musa a couple hundred coins to swap to my religion. And naturally, a few turns later he swapped back. Obviously transactions of that nature would work better if there was some penalty involved in swapping back to the original religion.

I answering rhetorical questions.