I quit for now

[TheGrayFox]

Which is a fine opinion, and based on some facts at least.

Of course, the launch was very rocky, but as I‘ve said (and showed) multiple times, aside from the reviews it isn‘t out of line for a recent civ game that the player count drops quickly and very low. And I still don’t believe in absolute concurrent peak player numbers as a great metric on their own. If we look at % of owners that play the game, it doesn’t look awful at all, for example. So, many of the people that bought it seem to play it (but of course, this number is also far from plain evidence).

Does this mean the game is super good? No. Does it mean it will be salvaged as were civ V and VI? No.

What get‘s me is the kind of „they took away my toy, and if I can‘t have fun with it, no one else should!“ attitude that I sometimes read from the posts.

I don't know why you keep trying to stress the % of owners that play the game based wholly on estimates and why you think its a more interesting or relevant metric than peak player count, current player counts, and estimated sales..... the fact that a high % of players actually played the game they spent 60-120 dollars not even a month or two after launch is kind of secondary to the fact that the game sold much less than its direct preddessecor and currently has less players than it's 15 year old predessecor and that half of its reviews are negative.

you're having fun with the game and that's great but I don't understand the mental gymnastics to try and make the game seem more succesful than it actually has been.

 

[Gedemon]

you're having fun with the game and that's great but I don't understand the mental gymnastics to try and make the game seem more succesful than it actually has been.

works both way.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't know why you keep trying to stress the % of owners that play the game based wholly on estimates and why you think its a more interesting or relevant metric than peak player count, current player counts, and estimated sales..... the fact that a high % of players actually played the game they spent 60-120 dollars not even a month or two after launch is kind of secondary to the fact that the game sold much less than its direct preddessecor and currently has less players than it's 15 year old predessecor and that half of its reviews are negative.

you're having fun with the game and that's great but I don't understand the mental gymnastics to try and make the game seem more succesful than it actually has been.

What do you mean by success here? If you speak about business value for 2K, they have much more relevant metrics than those we're discussing. And in the thread about simultaneous player count there are already pointed out a lot of reasons why this and similar metrics are not that relevant. And if by success you mean something else, could you elaborate?

P.S. You've mentioned estimated sales, but the only reliable data I've seen so far is that Civ7 has record high preorders. Which data you're mentioning?

 

[TheGrayFox]

works both way.

It really doesn't go both ways because failing to reach half the player count of your direct predessecor, having less players than a 15 year old game, and launching to mixed (over 50%) negative reviews is a flop for a AAA title. no matter how you try and rationalize it.

 

[TheGrayFox]

What do you mean by success here? If you speak about business value for 2K, they have much more relevant metrics than those we're discussing. And in the thread about simultaneous player count there are already pointed out a lot of reasons why this and similar metrics are not that relevant. And if by success you mean something else, could you elaborate?

P.S. You've mentioned estimated sales, but the only reliable data I've seen so far is that Civ7 has record high preorders. Which data you're mentioning?

What I mean by success is obvious. If you think the peak player count, active player count, and reviews are not relevant metrics of a game's success than I really don't know what would convince you other than 2K coming out and openly going "this was a disaster!!!!" which they wouldn't.

PS: I'm simply going by the sales estimation sites that people love to link, though I take those figures with a grain of salt

 

[stealth_nsk]

What I mean by success is obvious. If you think the peak player count, active player count, and reviews are not relevant metrics of a game's success than I really don't know what would convince you other than 2K coming out and openly going "this was a disaster!!!!" which they wouldn't.

PS: I'm simply going by the sales estimation sites that people love to link, though I take those figures with a grain of salt

It's not obvious that you mean by success. And from it, it's not clear whether those metrics are relevant or not.

 

[Gedemon]

It really doesn't go both ways because failing to reach half the player count of your direct predessecor, having less players than a 15 year old game, and launching to mixed (over 50%) negative reviews is a flop for a AAA title. no matter how you try and rationalize it.

that's mental gymnastic as you said.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It's not obvious that you mean by success. And from it, it's not clear whether those metrics are relevant or not.

we'll have to agree to disagree

that's mental gymnastic as you said.

It's really not.

The only mental gymnastics currently occuring is you trying to pretend that failing to meet half the peak players of your direct preddessecor, having less players than a 15 year old game in the same series, and releasing to Mixed negative reviews is a success story and totally what 2K wanted to happen.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

This game is what it is; it doesn't matter what they do with expansions/DLC/whatever this time. It's a fundamentally different game from every other Civ and you're either someone that's ok with it and future add-ons will add more to your experience, or you don't like it and no matter what they add it isn't going to change the problem you have with civ/age switching.

Yeah, but no if you consider what mods could do, if they only let modders do it.
Mods could change all of the annoying, unacceptable stuff, if modding capabilities going to allow for that.

 

[Gedemon]

It's really not.

The only mental gymnastics currently occuring is you trying to pretend that failing to meet half the peak players of your direct preddessecor, having less players than a 15 year old game in the same series, and releasing to Mixed negative reviews is a success story and totally what 2K wanted to happen.

It's really the same thing the other way, you just don't realize it because of your bias.

 

[need my speed]

It's really the same thing the other way, you just don't realize it because of your bias.

So what would need to be true for Civilization VII to be a success?
What would need to be true for Civilization VII to not be a success?
What are valid metrics to you?
And why are player count and review scores not valid metrics to you?

 

[stealth_nsk]

So what would need to be true for Civilization VII to be a success?
What would need to be true for Civilization VII to not be a success?
What are valid metrics to you?
And why are player count and review scores not valid metrics to you?

Ok, here too - what's your definition of success?

 

[Gedemon]

So what would need to be true for Civilization VII to be a success?
What would need to be true for Civilization VII to not be a success?
What are valid metrics to you?
And why are player count and review scores not valid metrics to you?

Well, who has the full metrics ? Who decide if it's a success or not ?

Not you, not me, it's 2K Games.

The definition of success for them will depend of their expectations, and unless there was some miscommunication between them and Firaxis, they must have known the game was about to be released unfinished.

So I can't imagine either of them being very surprised by the players count and review scores, and I can't imagine them not having planned how to make money with the game for at least the next 2 years, despite those numbers.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It's really the same thing the other way, you just don't realize it because of your bias.

It really isn’t because my conclusion is one the almost anyone would come to looking at evidence and actually relevant data we have This hasn’t been a successful AAA launch by almost any reasonable metric and no amount of looking at or deflecting to actually pointless statistics will change

But we can agree to disagree

 

[Civinator]

I can only measure the success by my person. Civ 7 is the first game of the civ series I have not purchased yet. I hope Civ 7 is not the end of the civilization series, as it was with Master of Orion 3, when a wonderful franchise died by the completely twisted ideas of a designer (o.k. there was an unsuccessful try to reanimate Master of Orion, that in my eyes doesn´t count) .

 

[TheGrayFox]

Well, who has the full metrics ? Who decide if it's a success or not ?

Not you, not me, it's 2K Games.

The definition of success for them will depend of their expectations, and unless there was some miscommunication between them and Firaxis, they must have known the game was about to be released unfinished.

So I can't imagine either of them being very surprised by the players count and review scores, and I can't imagine them not having planned how to make money with the game for at least the next 2 years, despite those numbers.

So you think 2K is happy that VII couldn’t break half of the peak players of VI at launch, has less current players than a 15 year old title in the same series, and is being lambasted with negative reviews…? you think that’s a success to them ?

Even factoring in they may have been aware they were shipping out an unfinished game. I’m struggling to see how this could be construed as a success

 

[Gedemon]

It really isn’t because my conclusion is one the almost anyone would come to looking at evidence and actually relevant data we have This hasn’t been a successful AAA launch by almost any reasonable metric and no amount of looking at or deflecting to actually pointless statistics will change

But we can agree to disagree

No, but I agree it's not a "successful AAA launch".

I just point that some people here are also using some kind of mental gymnastic to make the game a failure.

It's not binary, the game not being a success at launch doesn't mean it will be a failure in the long run, and 2K is here for the long run.

So you think 2K is happy that VII couldn’t break half of the peak players of VI at launch, has less current players than a 15 year old title in the same series, and is being lambasted with negative reviews…? you think that’s a success to them ?

Even factoring in they may have been aware they were shipping out an unfinished game. I’m struggling to see how this could be construed as a success

What I'm saying is that it must not be a surprise to them.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Call me a hairsplitter if you will, but I distinguish between a successful launch and a successful game.

For me, a successful launch would include all of these metrics: preorders, total sales (quantity, not dollars), active players, and sustained sales in the first few months. Some of these metrics we can see, some are estimated, and some have not yet been reported by 2K. My opinion is that the launch has not met my expectations. I'm sure that 2K had some expectations/projections about sales and revenue; I have no way of knowing if the launch met their expectations/forecast. I'm hesitant to call the launch a "flop", because I am not sure how I would distinguish between "unsuccessful", "flop", or "disaster."

For me, a successful game requires time to judge. It needs to receive support, improvements, and additional content. A successful game has a consistent player base measured in months if not years. The loyalty (or lack of loyalty) of the players can't be measured in the first two (or three or six) months after launch. It is simply WAY TOO SOON to know if Civ7 will be a successful game.

I also support the OP and others who want to take a break, wait for updates, and to play other games. I've played some Civ6 in the last week, and some Civ3, and will go back to BERT since I have a personal goal to finish: winning a contact victory with every leader. I'm going to keep Civ7 in my rotation, because I'm having fun.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Call me a hairsplitter if you will, but I distinguish between a successful launch and a successful game.

For me, a successful launch would include all of these metrics: preorders, total sales (quantity, not dollars), active players, and sustained sales in the first few months. Some of these metrics we can see, some are estimated, and some have not yet been reported by 2K. My opinion is that the launch has not met my expectations. I'm sure that 2K had some expectations/projections about sales and revenue; I have no way of knowing if the launch met their expectations/forecast. I'm hesitant to call the launch a "flop", because I am not sure how I would distinguish between "unsuccessful", "flop", or "disaster."

For me, a successful game requires time to judge. It needs to receive support, improvements, and additional content. A successful game has a consistent player base measured in months if not years. The loyalty (or lack of loyalty) of the players can't be measured in the first two (or three or six) months after launch. It is simply WAY TOO SOON to know if Civ7 will be a successful game.

I also support the OP and others who want to take a break, wait for updates, and to play other games. I've played some Civ6 in the last week, and some Civ3, and will go back to BERT since I have a personal goal to finish: winning a contact victory with every leader. I'm going to keep Civ7 in my rotation, because I'm having fun.

I generally agree with this, but there are some additional nuances. For example, sustained sales are generally not a thing for the first months. Each game has it's preorder/launch spike, which drops significantly afterwards, but is followed by other spikes later on DLC and sales.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Ho, but I agree it's not a "successful AAA launch".

I just point that some people here are also using some kind of mental gymnastic to make the game a failure.

It's not binary, the game not being a success at launch doesn't mean it will be a failure in the long run, and 2K is here for the long run.

If it's not a succesful launch and it's not even an "acceptable" launch by most AAA standards that leaves us with one other option Gedemon...... VII had a flop of a launch. There are no mental gymnastics going when we point that out here. Just look at the peak player count, estimated sales figures, the mixed reviews, and the fact that Civ V literally has more players now... It's just obvious

You can try to move the goal posts and make the argument about whether the game will fail in the long run or not but the topic of the conversation was dealing with the realities of now, not hypotheticals. The game's launch was a flop, the game currently is not a success, and a flop of this level might have ramifications for the series' future and future success. No where have I declared without any room for nuance for that the game has failed in the longrun and will never be able to recover. That's a strawman.

What I'm saying is that it must not be a surprise to them.

So you think they wanted this?