He claims that the games are similar in the fact that the previous installments were very moddable. Something that seems to lack from the current ones in order to increase the amount of money the developer can make off of DLC's.
And that modding was later enabled (something which is also claimed to happen with SC) but was also severely limited in it's options.
And yes you can replicate all the factions and leaders with the modding tools. But you didn't have those on release, so you were stuck without them, not know when or if they will be added. So his claim is spot on as far as the strategy adopting part is concerned.
Well, I have a class to attend to very shortly, so I will keep this rather short.
He opened his series of comments with
Simcity Societies 2 would be a cute name for it. And as a long term fan of the franchise I sincerely hope it flops as badly as societies.
Which I understood as:
I do not like this game nor sim city societies (with good reasons.), so I hope this game fails.
...and I personally found it mean spirited and no logic behind it whatsover.
Then he moved on to nit picking the game's moddability at launch.
Does being unmoddable for a short while really mean game being not strategic? Is that his argument then?
I mean, his basis for the argument is already debunked.
Devs hamper modding to make more money -> Civ 5 is a good example -> But you can replicate every dlcs with the modding tool ->
As far as I know, there wasn't a whole lot of dlcs for civ 5 before the modding tool release, just the babylon and several map packs. ->
Which invalidates the qualification for being an example to support his arguement on civ 5's case.
I don't even know why I am wasting my time like this.