If I had to guess, their test group was very much like those on this forum who identify with the leaders more (because this seems to be the common viewpoint among those who follow the game closely). I think they could have done the same exact test with a more representative group and found the results to be very different.
How to repair the Age transition system -not a civ game- opinions and suggestions
- Thread starter Lazy sweeper
- Start date
Exactly where we were months ago when many of us disagreed with you and still do. You didn't "win".
Ada Lovelace is one of the best leaders in the game. It's about time that we get new, interesting characters to play. I'm tired of Napoleon and all of the various Roman emperors. Bleh.
Also, switching leaders doesn't make any sense.
So, what, Rome exists from 4000 BC to present day with precisely three leaders, each of which ruled for hundreds of years? That somehow makes more sense to you than peoples and nations changing over time, which is what actually happened? Really? No, thanks.
So, what, Rome exists from 4000 BC to present day with precisely three leaders, each of which ruled for hundreds of years? That somehow makes more sense to you than peoples and nations changing over time, which is what actually happened? Really? No, thanks.
Where we are now is that the game's release has suffered. That's where.
New and interesting characters are good for DLC. If you want your game to sell, you lead with the greatest hits, not Ada Lovelace.
If it at least would be „all of the various Roman emperors.“ I wish for Constantine, Marcus Aurelius, Diocletian, or Antoninus Pius. But we are stuck with Cesar and Augustus. At least we got Trajan in VI.
I think it is important to strike a balance between well-known leaders and fresh faces though to attract people. Yet, I wish 7 would have been more adventurous with their selection. It gave me the impression that with the civ switching, they wanted to avoid lesser-known leaders to allow for stronger identification with the leaders.
Apparently the millions who have chosen to not buy this game, despite previously being customers, disagree with you. When 90% of the people who previously bought from you choose to not buy your next product, that's a problem.
You can want these features in a game. That's perfectly fine. However, when you're dealing with a decades-old franchise with an established fanbase you need to consider what they will accept and what will sell. Civ switching isn't selling. If you have such a problem with Rome existing from 4000 BC to 2000 AD, I think its fair to ask how you were a fan of the franchise at all when that was an aspect of each entry until now.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,633
Honestly, I think it's far from universal either way and difficult to tell if leader or civ identification is the majority. I also don't know if it matters, as long as a sufficiently large group feels strongly either way there's gonna be a problem. If one group was significantly smaller than the other firaxis could have accepted pissing them off as a cost, but I don't think that seems like the case.
I love Ada by the way. I love decoupling civs from leaders. It allows for a bunch of civs which don't have known leaders to be included and it lets the devs get more wild with leader abilities if they aren't restricted to picking yet another millitary conquerer each time...
Hyperbole in numbers doesn‘t help at all to improve your argument. It does the opposite.
Ada Lovelace is, in fact, a DLC leader. Success!
Do you have evidence to support your claim of "millions" of lost sales?
I have no problem with Rome existing from 4000 BC to now. I have a problem with Rome existing from 4000 BC to now with three leaders. What's the point of that? Are we going to make up leaders? Pretend that Trajan is alive in 1920? Have Ben Franklin lead Rome in the modern age?
At least changing civilizations has a historical basis and makes some sense. Besides, it allows the developers to highlight civilizations that otherwise wouldn't make sense in the game and it allows everyone to have fun unique abilities that make sense for the age they're in. What would Rome get in the exploration age or the modern age? Some made up nonsense? Better legions when everyone else has tanks? It just doesn't work.
Build something you believe in! It seems that the game suits you.
It's not hyperbole. If sales of this game are in the ~1 million range and Civ 6 sold in the 10-20 million range, that's actually a very conservative estimate, the opposite of hyperbole.
That's a lot of guessing. But you're also comparing 9 years of sales to a few months of sales.
https://steamdb.info/app/289070/charts/ - 10-20 million estimated sales for Civ 6
https://steamdb.info/app/1295660/charts/ - 1 million estimated sales for Civ 7
Not guessing. Going off the data I have.
Those 9 years of sales created a large customer base of people who would hopefully become repeat customers. Any way you slice it, a large majority of the people who have already purchased from you (and any salesperson will tell you this is the easiest type of sale to make) saw the new product and said "I'm not buying it" or "eh, I'll wait". Either way, that's not good.
MutilationWave
IDDQD
Both sides have good points, and I don't really think we need to continue this argument yet again. We are more alike than we are different as it takes a certain kind of person to be really into Civ.
It is pretty unfair to compare lifetime sales of 6 to three months of 7.
sixty4half
I drink and I know things
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 757
I identify more with the "immortal leader" than I do 1 continuous nation from dirt to space. I understand your position but I don't think civ 7 got it wrong.
The main customer base started being built about 3.5 DECADES ago, not 9 years ago. In fact, some of us old timers didnt even like civ 6. Yet here I am, a repeat customer.
I fail to see how this supports your point, as it seems to support mine. It just increases the number of people who have been exposed to the franchise and previously purchased it, yet chose to not buy this title.
And how many of those customers bought VI when it was on sale or as part of a later release pack with bundled DLC?
I'm sorry, but comparing nine years of sales to three months of sales is just nonsensical.
1. I don't particularly care about subjective feelings of fairness.
2. It's not a comparison. It's a statement of fact. A vast majority of people who purchased Civ 6 have chosen not to purchase Civ 7.
3. For a game that has poor review scores, people waiting to buy is a bad thing, as it just increases the likelihood that they will never buy.
If you want to be pedantic, then no, it's not a fact. You don't know whether they have chosen not to purchase Civ 7, you are just guessing. There can be other reasons for not purchasing it, e.g., the person died or cannot purchase it for a multitude of reasons. Or they actually chose to purchase it, but haven't yet done so (because they intend to do it later for a reduced price or once the complete package is out etc.). In any way, it's clearly not a fact if you care to look closely.
And no, this is no excuse for civ 7's performance at all, just a remark to set things a bit more straight. And I think a comparison would be more suited to, well, compare things and would lead to a similar result without hyperbole: civ 7 did not convince enough of the franchise's enthusiasts to buy it yet. But you probably have a good reason why you don't want to do that.
