Good thing people who refund's reviews are not counted in the total/percentage of reviews and are not contributing to why it has Mixed reviews or else this may have actually been a concern
This is outdated information from like 10 years ago. Refunded reviews are no longer hidden. They show up, they count towards the total, and they're marked with a "refunded" tag.
PC is the main platform for which strategy games are played and Xbox and Playstation currently only has a very tiny fraction of total number of reviews on Steam (they're also mixed).
This is outdated information from like 10 years ago. Refunded reviews are no longer hidden. They show up, they count towards the total, and they're marked with a "refunded" tag.
No I’m pretty sure it’s not “outdated” information bud. No where did I say that the reviews become hidden. I said they’re not counted towards the negative-mixed-positive percentage and the total number of reviews which is simply true unless you have some source on this proving otherwise. This is how it has always worked
No it’s not “outdated” information bud. No where did I say that the reviews become hidden. I said they’re not counted towards the negative-mixed-positive percentage and the total number of reviews which is simply true unless you have some source on this proving otherwise. This is how it has always worked
Incorrect, my friend. It has not "always worked" like that and it doesn't work like that anymore.
You're referencing a change in their review policy from like 2010, where they specifically said refunded reviews would "no longer" be counted (meaning they were previously) and would be hidden. That policy has now changed again. Refunded reviews are now fully visible and count.
This is outdated information from like 10 years ago. Refunded reviews are no longer hidden. They show up, they count towards the total, and they're marked with a "refunded" tag.
Last week's update to the Steam User Reviews feature has boosted some titles' review scores because reviews for refunded games don't count towards the overall score now.
www.gamingonpc.com
Again a basic search seems to confirm the opposite and the article above is from 2017 not 2010
It should be kind of obvious that I'm talking about the reviews on PS and Xbox platform compared to Steam platform.... and not saying there are Xbox and Playstation reviews ON steam.....
No the fact that PC is the main audience of the Civ series is not speculation bud. Again if you want to put your hands over your eyes and pretend that Playstation and Xbox and the wholly unpopular Epic Games Store are making up the difference in player count between VI and VII here feel free but there is literally nothing to indicate that as true and again. VI sold over million to PC alone in its first weeks
Last week's update to the Steam User Reviews feature has boosted some titles' review scores because reviews for refunded games don't count towards the overall score now.
No the fact that PC is the main audience of the Civ series is not speculation bud. Again if you want to put your hands over your eyes and pretend that Playstation and Xbox and the wholly unpopular Epic Games Store are making up the difference in player count between VI and VII here feel free but there is literally nothing to indicate that as true and again.
You are arguing that the algorithm wouldn't suggest general reviews of civ7, but specifically negative ones (obviously not from the same creator) if one watches a negative one. That part I find hard to believe.
You are severely underestimating how precise the YouTube algorithm is. Yes, it will absolutely recommend precisely those reviews with a similar tone to the ones you've already watched.
I think you're severely overestimating the value of those points. If you're not playing a culture-focused game, one or two cultural attribute points aren't going to make much of a difference for you, and +2 culture on all wonders is arguably not worth taking even if you do unlock it.
This response shows that you're intentionally missing the point, which is why you removed the sentence that came after which explained that those were examples of the heavy hand of the developer guiding gameplay and making the game less sandboxy. It was an example of the Civ version of "yellow paint"
This response shows that you're intentionally missing the point, which is why you removed the sentence that came after which explained that those were examples of the heavy hand of the developer guiding gameplay and making the game less sandboxy. It was an example of the Civ version of "yellow paint"
None of those other games or studios have the production budget of Firaxis and shareholders are looking for return of investment. They’re looking for growth, selling less than your predecessors and more than a AA game like AOW or humankind (which had decent initial sales and lost all its player and potential dlc purchasers almost immediately) isn’t what anyone at 2K is looking for
Civ is also AA just like AoW and humankind. Millenia had a smaller production budget. Civ7 player number is nowhere near Millennia or Ara, so I do not see the problem. That weird marvel hero card game is an example of a failed game. It had only 15k concurrent players and someone from 2k said in an interview that sales were disappointing.
Maybe someone at 2K is looking for eternal growth, but it is a dumb idea in the entertainment industry. Even the best tv series usually come to an end at some point. After a couple years people just get tired of the characters no matter how interesting they were at first. That's why you always need some disruption, something new. It's not some Zeitgeist as OP claims, it's the liveblood of the entertainment industry. Civ 6.5 already exists, it's called mods.
To me it feels like they broke their golden rule of "one third new, one third same, one third improved" and changed too much. Then you have a cheap looking console UI (healthbars), overpriced DLC and this stupid advanced access. If you "only" pay 70 dollars for the base game you get punished and have to wait another five days until you can play the game because of corporate greed. I can understand that a lot of civ fanatics are frustrated and gave the game a negative review or simply sticked with an older civ game for now. I wouldn't be surprised if civ7 sees a lot of patches in the next year similar to civ5 after launch.
Civ is also AA just like AoW and humankind. Millenia had a smaller production budget. Civ7 player number is nowhere near Millennia or Ara, so I do not see the problem. That weird marvel hero card game is an example of a failed game. It had only 15k concurrent players and someone from 2k said in an interview that sales were disappointing.
Maybe someone at 2K is looking for eternal growth, but it is a dumb idea in the entertainment industry. Even the best tv series usually come to an end at some point. After a couple years people just get tired of the characters no matter how interesting they were at first. That's why you always need some disruption, something new. It's not some Zeitgeist as OP claims, it's the liveblood of the entertainment industry. Civ 6.5 already exists, it's called mods.
To me it feels like they broke their golden rule of "one third new, one third same, one third improved" and changed too much. Then you have a cheap looking console UI (healthbars), overpriced DLC and this stupid advanced access. If you "only" pay 70 dollars for the base game you get punished and have to wait another five days until you can play the game because of corporate greed. I can understand that a lot of civ fanatics are frustrated and gave the game a negative review or simply sticked with an older civ game for now. I wouldn't be surprised if civ7 sees a lot of patches in the next year similar to civ5 after launch.
I'm sorry but Civ is not a AA game at all. You think Firaxis is some chump tier devoloper? Civilization is one of the best selling video game franchises of all time and 2K one of the largest publishers bought them for that reason.
That's part of the explanation. Negative reviews could come from genuinely disliking the game, but they also could come from "hate train" caused by social media. They could even be caused by bots - in the recent couple of years several media projects were review bombed by bots for "wokeness" and I assume Civ7 could be viewed as such by those bots' owners.
I'm sorry but Civ is not a AA game at all. You think Firaxis is some chump tier devoloper? Civilization is one of the best selling video game franchises of all time and 2K one of the largest publishers bought them for that reason.
Average AAA game in 2023 had a dev budget of 200 millions. Civ has maybe 10% of that. A AAA game like GTA 5 sold 210 Million copies. It is a completly different league than civ in terms of sales. Firaxis is a great developer but that has nothing to do with some AA or AAA label.
That's why I watch a positive and then a negative back and forth, it's the only way to get any information out of YouTube that's not spoon fed to you. This goes for most subjects.
Average AAA game in 2023 had a dev budget of 200 millions. Civ has maybe 10% of that. A AAA game like GTA 5 sold 210 Million copies. It is a completly different league than civ in terms of sales. Firaxis is a great developer but that has nothing to do with some AA or AAA label.
I'm sorry but no, the average AAA game absolutely does not have a 200 million dollar budget, where did you pull that figure from....? Also do you really think Zelda, Mario, or Pokemon are as expensive to make as GTA 5 or Call of Duty? I'll spoil it their are all AAA series too.
GTA5 selling 210 million copies doesn't make the Civilization's franchise any less of a succesful. Civilization series' total sales are literally comparable to that of the Halo, Battlefield, Just Dance, Metal Gear, God of War Gran Turismo, Dragon Quest, etc, etc as series and you're trying to pretend that Firaxis is some second rate devoloper like Amplitude? Come on but I think we need to be a bit more realistic. 2K has higher expectations than that
Fwiw, it is still very early days Games can turn things around - and games in the Civ series also have done that with a number of previous titles.
If there is a worry, it is about stuff the game is unlikely to change - and the primary example of that is the leader-civ-era mechanisms.
Of course for all we know new players will come in who don't care about how the game was prior to Civ7 - in such a case, those issues (things seen as issues arguably by many players of past civ games) will be irrelevant.
To present this with the most impossibly dramatic example: say that in a hypothetical universe, Civ7 was what in our universe is Ara. Ara sold in that universe more than previous Civ titles. It would still be successful, and assuming future Ara-Civ titles appeared, they would become the Civ series.
I'm sorry but no, the average AAA game absolutely does not have a 200 million dollar budget, where did you pull that figure from....? Also do you really think Zelda or Mario are as expensive to make as GTA 5 or Call of Duty? I'll spoil it those are both AAA series too.
GTA selling 210 million copies doesn't make the Civilization's franchise any less of a succesful. Civilization series' total sales are literally comparable to that of the Halo, Battlefield, Just Dance, Metal Gear, God of War Gran Turismo, Dragon Quest, etc, etc and you're trying to pretend that Firaxis is some second rate devoloper like Amplitude? Come on but I think we need to be a bit more realistic. 2K has bigger expectations than that
A report released alongside the CMA's decision to block the Microsoft Activision Blizzard acquisition reveals the demanding costs behind modern AAA game development, which can surpass $1 billion over a franchise.
www.ign.com
AAA is just an industry term that describes games that have a really huge budget.
But ok, lets take a look at the other games you mentioned.
Halo: 160k player peak, but costs only 40dollar.
Battlefield 2042: 107k player peak at 60dollar
Just dance: no idea what that is, but there is a ubisoft game from 2016 that had a player peak of 174
Metal gear: 91k player peak at 30 dollar
God of War: 73k player peak at 50 dollar
gran turismo: not on steam
dragon quest: 45k player peak at 60 dollar
So once you compare civ7 to games that are not civ6, the player numbers look really good. Well, you managed to convince me that civ7 is an even bigger success than I thought.
A report released alongside the CMA's decision to block the Microsoft Activision Blizzard acquisition reveals the demanding costs behind modern AAA game development, which can surpass $1 billion over a franchise.
www.ign.com
AAA is just an industry term that describes games that have a really huge budget.
The fact that they CAN cost that much does not mean that is anywhere near the average though and much of that cost is factoring in advertising, not just production.. Genshin Impact cost were apparently close to 1 billion but that is in no way typical of game devolopment
Looking at that list there are plenty of AAA games that are devolopedAND advertised for less than 100 mill and I'll again I point out most Nintendo series, which are no where to be found on the list and yet no one taken seriously would dare say Nintendo isn't a AAA devoloper.
But ok, lets take a look at the other games you mentioned.
Halo: 160k player peak, but costs only 40dollar.
Battlefield 2042: 107k player peak at 60dollar
Just dance: no idea what that is, but there is a ubisoft game from 2016 that had a player peak of 174
Metal gear: 91k player peak at 30 dollar
God of War: 73k player peak at 50 dollar
gran turismo: not on steam
dragon quest: 45k player peak at 60 dollar
So once you compare civ7 to games that are not civ6, the player numbers look really good. Well, you managed to convince me that civ7 is an even bigger success than I thought.
Most of those titles mentioned are most popular on consoles where there are no player count figures. Certainly you can see how it's quite disingenious to compare games like Battlefield, Metal Gear, and Halo to Civilization based on steam numbers alone (which still destroy VII's further making my point here), when those games are either console games ported to PC or brand console staples like Halo and God of War.
No,when you compare Civ VII to these other series it doesn't make this launch any better. Civ is a flagship PC series and it couldn't reach a higher peak than Beyond Earth. That's a flop
Also the fact that Civ is being sold for $70 base kind of all the evidence you need to conclude that 2k sees Civ as prestige AAA title. Come on, I can't believe you're seriously trying to compare Firaxis and Amplitude. Again, I think it's time to be a bit more realistic here.
I honestly suspect that civ5 could have received similar score if it were released on fully fledged steam in 2010, I remember its release being incredibly chaotic. This game was very barebones, unbalanced and messy on release, with diplomacy in particular being intolerable dumpster fire - stuff like all AIs on the map erratically hating you and attacking you all the time with no predictable way to befriend them. It was essentially a war game with very little else to do, with catastrophically bad AI even for the usual 1UPT standards. The first DLC was offered for free instead of being paid like planned as a part of the appeasement policy lol. Civ6 had fantastic, smooth release by comparision.
Were the Mongols really planned to be paid? I always assumed they were offered for free as exchange for Firaxis turning preorder-bonus-Babylon into a paid DLC on the same day instead of releasing them for everyone like the Aztecs in Civ6.
The fact that they CAN cost that much does not mean that is anywhere near the average though and much of that cost is factoring in advertising, not just production.. Genshin Impact cost were apparently close to 1 billion but that is in no way typical of game devolopment
Genshin costs that much because it's been in continuous development since release and is estimated to have spent $200m a year on top of the initial $100m. All these 3D Chinese gacha have enormous development costs and as long as they don't die in the first six months the numbers balloon because they eventually become truly enormous games.
AAA is a marketing term, arguing whether or not Civ counts is pointless. At one point it solely meant "expensive games" then broaded to mean "games published by a big publisher" and nowadays seems meaningless.
Were the Mongols really planned to be paid? I always assumed they were offered for free as exchange for Firaxis turning preorder-bonus-Babylon into a paid DLC on the same day instead of releasing them for everyone like the Aztecs in Civ6.
Genshin costs that much because it's been in continuous development since release and is estimated to have spent $200m a year on top of the initial $100m. All these 3D Chinese gacha have enormous development costs and as long as they don't die in the first six months the numbers balloon because they eventually become truly enormous games.
AAA is a marketing term, arguing whether or not Civ counts is pointless. At one point it solely meant "expensive games" then broaded to mean "games published by a big publisher" and nowadays seems meaningless.
Sure I do understand that ultimately it's a meaningless marketing term/distinction and all that matters is raw numbers. At the end of the day all these shareholders care about is how much did the game cost to produce and advertise and how much did it sell, at how much, and how many people can we peddle more content to. That's it
No matter how you look at it though, I doubt 2K or Firaxis expected to barely be able to reach the peak player count of a franchise spin off that flopped 15 years ago and I doubt they expected that their latest entry in such a well established series wouldn't be able to preform even half as well as its immediate predessecor....
You don't sell AA games at $70 at launch and with day 1 DLC content nearly doubling that price. In 2K's own words Firaxis was acquired to enhance their AAA talent. They were expecting to make serious money and Firaxis has only released commercial disappointment after disappointment recently
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.gamingonpc.com
Games can turn things around - and games in the Civ series also have done that with a number of previous titles.en.wikipedia.org
www.ign.com
