Is Civ loosing steam? By that I mean not as popular as before?

[Commander Bello]

This is a shocking opinion to hear in the context of discussing creative work. So much so it could almost have been written by a media corporation boss

Not shocking at all.
People even have regarded a pile of *** in an empty bathtub to be "creative work". This opinion is not shared by everybody, though.

And last, there is no question that I would be qualified to be a corporation's "boss", as you put it. But thanks for bringing it to public attention once more.

 

[Shurdus]

Not everyone gets to "choose" to have a broadband connection. Depending on location, the only broadband options (e.g. wireless or satellite) can be extremely expensive. Maybe that's what you mean by "choose"?

EDIT.. This a reply to Shurdus.

Even then, having steam download stuff is an inconvenience. It is not more than that. We can blow this up to epic proportions like some people seem to do, but those choosing to buy civ5 need to find a workaround it seems. You can leave a pc on at night or something like that, or whatever. Just that it will be inconvenient for some is barely worth an outrage like the one being displayed on these boards.

In the end, if you feel like an internet conncetion is not good enough to play civ5, you can always not buy the game. It is a shame, sure, but nothing more.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Sure, that's fine. Just don't fall into the trap of assuming everyone has access to a cheap and reliable broadband connection.

Suppose for example there is a 1GB patch on release day (probably unrealistic but whatever). That would be a hassle for some people who bought the disc version.

Steam has awkward handling of patching and offline/online mode functionality. Head over to the steam forums and you see probably hundreds of threads of people asking for help. I choose not to ignore flaws with the Steam client just because there are ways to get around them. User friendly software should aim to prevent issues coming up in the first place. e.g my post a couple of months ago about how the Steam client freezes and fails to load into either of online or offline mode when the internet connection signal quality drops.

I agree with the comments from people describing Steam as basically being designed only for online use, and for the most part does well there. However, the sorts of hoops you have to jump through to get offline mode working properly are more than should be expected even of a computer literate user.

 

[Shurdus]

Sure, that's fine. Just don't fall into the trap of assuming everyone has access to a cheap and reliable broadband connection.

Suppose for example there is a 1GB patch on release day (probably unrealistic but whatever). That would be a hassle for some people who bought the disc version.

Steam has awkward handling of patching and offline/online mode functionality. Head over to the steam forums and you see probably hundreds of threads of people asking for help. I choose not to ignore flaws with the Steam client just because there are ways to get around them. User friendly software should aim to prevent issues coming up in the first place. e.g my post a couple of months ago about how the Steam client freezes and fails to load into either of online or offline mode when the internet connection signal quality drops.

I agree with the comments from people describing Steam as basically being designed only for online use. The sorts of hoops you have to jump through to get offline mode working properly are more than should be expected even of a computer literate user.

Agreed. Steam could be better. Then again I can see why they chose to go with steam still.

I can illistrate this with one example: Demigod, written by Ironclad, published by Stardock. That game had such a poor multiplayer functionality that online gaming in that game barely took off. Stardock has a stellar reputation, but they could not completely fix the problems that occured in the multiplayer department, which is a shame considering the game is a multiplayer game.

Steam already has a fully functioning multiplayer system, and a good one at that. Plugging into that system is so much more convenient than reinventing a system for multiplayer games that I can see how using steam would be way more convenient for Firaxis, even if that alienated some users.

 

[Shiggs713]

Even then, having steam download stuff is an inconvenience. It is not more than that. We can blow this up to epic proportions like some people seem to do, but those choosing to buy civ5 need to find a workaround it seems. You can leave a pc on at night or something like that, or whatever. Just that it will be inconvenient for some is barely worth an outrage like the one being displayed on these boards.

In the end, if you feel like an internet conncetion is not good enough to play civ5, you can always not buy the game. It is a shame, sure, but nothing more.

my pc's been on continuously for 9 months straight, and before that it was something in the order of years... is that a bad thing? j/k

While I generally don't like Steam, I am willing to accept it, and being forced to download the software is part of that. For the people who want to play ciV and have bad connections, I suggest you do as Shurdus hinted to; download it overnight, or over the course of a day while your at work/school. I couldn't even imagine being on dial up still though thats so 1992, feel bad for the people who do not have cheap access to broadband or at least DSL. That is of course your problems though, not Steams/2k's/Firaxis, I'd guess most people playing ciV have high speed connections by now. You can even go to your local McDonalds or just about any restaurant (here in Indy at least) and get free high speed WiFi anyways, just bring your laptops and your good to go.

 

[Disgustipated]

I think Civ will be okay. The thing you all have to realize is us older guys (I'm 37) still game. It's not like we quit gaming as we get older. Although women take up far more time in my life than gaming now days. I still try to play civ4, however. My point is people like me will continue to buy and play civ type games up until we are physically unable to play. I expect to be playing civ 22 when I'm 70 years old.

So as long as they don't run the franchise into the ground (which is possible) they have a guaranteed market from us old timers. Not to mention there are kids that prefer slower paced games, so there's room to expand the market as well.

so it's not like us old timers are dying off and won't buy civ games anymore.