Civ 6 drops below Civ 5 on Steam

[Raider]

Looks like it only took a couple of month for the player base to start to drop Civ VI en masse. Would be nice if the devs took note and put in the effort to fix and finish this game properly. Not sure how likely that is, so pretty glad of my decision to request a refund before my 2 hours were up.

 

[Setikeru]

Are you talking about players? Because Civ 5 is a much cheaper game and you get a lot more for a lot less. It's silly to think that Civ 6 without DLC would've been anything near as good.

Also, I think it's silly to judge a turn based strategy game on less than 2 hours of gameplay, personally..

 

[bladex]

drops below civ V i wonder why huh

 

[greygamer]

Difficulty to say if this is to be expected as we don't have comparable data for Civ IV/Civ V. There may have been a similar fall off until G&K was released

 

[Solaxe]

Maybe because Civ V is cheaper, was just on a sale, and has been on Steam for MUCH longer and has a lot more DLCs?

 

[Gorbles]

I have no idea why this is anything approaching news. It seems to me that the OP has an agenda beyond comparing the feature set and price point of the relative games, and they're using player count as pretext for that.

 

[FurballRocker]

Interestingly all these types of comments seem very familiar from 6 years ago when people were comparing civ V release to civ IV. I guess in another 6 or so years time people will be quitting civ VII to keep playing civ VI.

 

[bladex]

^ only if they fix the AI

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Are you talking about players? Because Civ 5 is a much cheaper game and you get a lot more for a lot less. It's silly to think that Civ 6 without DLC would've been anything near as good.

Also, I think it's silly to judge a turn based strategy game on less than 2 hours of gameplay, personally..

2 hours is plenty to see the most crippling flaws in 6, unfortunately. In fact, it's about right for someone making an effort to learn the game and realizing that the implementation hinders the ability to use strategy in a strategy title.

If one doesn't have high attachment to the series or another reason for playing it, playing through obtuse fake difficulty and controls worse than 20 year old games is something you absolutely can notice in less than 2 hours.

The AI is bad too, but Civ 6 fails before that. It fails at the core facets of any game ever, IE the ability to learn/play it and controls.

 

[liv]

Civ 5 overtook civ 6 on November 27th and has been the more played game of the two since then
Civ 6 saw a bit of growth in people played over the holidays so it looks like it is doing OK. At least when comparing it to what happened to BE's numbers.
(But yeah the AI needs improvements)

 

[Hian the Frog]

2 hours is plenty to see the most crippling flaws in 6, unfortunately. In fact, it's about right for someone making an effort to learn the game and realizing that the implementation hinders the ability to use strategy in a strategy title.

If one doesn't have high attachment to the series or another reason for playing it, playing through obtuse fake difficulty and controls worse than 20 year old games is something you absolutely can notice in less than 2 hours.

The AI is bad too, but Civ 6 fails before that. It fails at the core facets of any game ever, IE the ability to learn/play it and controls.

That's true and I agree.
It took me a few hours to understand the game...and another few tests to understand that there's nothing interesting in that game. The AI is more than bad. Can we simply call this an AI ?
More than the AI stupidity, can we call Civ a strategy game ? I think no. It looks like an "History Simcity"....

 

[bbbt]

Well both are above No Man's Sky, so they've got that

I'd say more concerning for them is that the reviews on steam have gone downhill decidedly - seems to be a combo of standard complaints (AI/diplomacy, no team multiplayer, etc.) and unhappiness over the digital deluxe/DLC pricing issues.

 

[anandus]

Interestingly all these types of comments seem very familiar from 6 years ago when people were comparing civ V release to civ IV. I guess in another 6 or so years time people will be quitting civ VII to keep playing civ VI.

Indeed, it's deja vu.
Civ 5 has sold millions more than Civ 6 at the moment, so there's a bigger base. Also some Civ 6 players are returning to Civ 5 as it's more complete, having had 14 DLC and more important 2 expansion packs. Plus 6 years of balancing and bugfixing.

For what it's worth the reception of Civ 6 is a lot better than it was with Civ 5. But truth be told, Civ 5 was the No Man's Sky of it's day

 

[ColPaladin]

None of my Civ V friends will buy Civ 6 after watching me play for an evening. In order to even somewhat enjoy the game, I've been forced to use the trade route mod; the building cue mod; and I went into the programming and set the defensive spies for 64 turns. But there is no mod I've seen that fixes the awful AI. Why we have to have customers fix the game, while we all wait months for THEM to fix the same things is unbelievable.

It's a fact that there are far more people playing 5 than 6. That includes a lot of people like me that bought 6, and have gone back to 5. That's a huge deal when people pay a ton of money for a new version of a game, and don't play it in favor of one they already have.

There is a alarming trend now'adays that if you argue about facts, it changes the facts. It only changes things in your mind. #TrumpLogic

 

[Raider]

For people who say that when Civ 5 came out, people said the same thing about Civ 4 being more popular...well yeah. Back then Civ 5 was also a far inferior game to Civ 4. Still is. Even after 2 expansions, Civ 5 AI is still a joke.

 

[Zuizgond]

Usually people are playing the new game and let the old one behind. But not here. Yet I see so many people in this thread trying to say it's normal and find some poor price or volume excuses to that. It's becoming pathethic.

 

[Leathaface]

Civ VI base game is vastly, vastly, VASTLY superior to Civ V base game.

 

[Gorbles]

Usually people are playing the new game and let the old one behind. But not here. Yet I see so many people in this thread trying to say it's normal and find some poor price or volume excuses to that. It's becoming pathethic.

Except when DoW II came out and a large amount of shouty people kept shouting that they preferred vDoW. And the same with CoH II vs. vCoH. And again when UT3 came out and people preferred the existing UT2004 community (UT2k3 being a bit dead in the water tbh).

You saying things as facts, does not make them so.

 

[mbbcam]

Every time I see one of these discussions on the net I find myself thinking of the False Consensus Effect. I know I keep pointing it out, but I can't help feeling that more people ought to know about it -- it would reduce conflict a little if people at least knew the basics of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect

And my apologies for derailing the thread, but I'm hoping to promote a little understanding.

 

[Zuizgond]

Except when DoW II came out and a large amount of shouty people kept shouting that they preferred vDoW. And the same with CoH II vs. vCoH. And again when UT3 came out and people preferred the existing UT2004 community (UT2k3 being a bit dead in the water tbh).

You saying things as facts, does not make them so.

That's why I put 'usually'. And in the few cases people prefer the previous version (which is the case here with Civ 5 vs 6), it just means that the new iteration is bad.