"More patches are on their way"

[wolfblue]

@gamemaster77 - i think you use facts as figures just as poorly as duuks lack of them.
its equally wrong to totally ignore the fact that there is a very vocal and supported group of people who simply cant stand the game and feel betrayed by civ5. sure some people just cant adapt to the new style and others are on a bandwagon but it still remains that a significant portion of the fan base is dissatisfied with CIV5 whether you personally like it or not.
dispite your opinions on the thread heading i think it is a safe bet that a larger percentage of the people on the civ5 boards are expressing negative or less than positive views on the game than those in the civ4 boards

I remember when CIV4 came out many people thought it was absolutly marvelous. yes there was a vocal group of people who disliked it essentially because it was not civ3 and because the release was buggy but the hate was not as widespread and polarized as it is for civ5.

also note stability bugs, on an otherwise well liked game is much easier to patch than fixing a simply poorly thought out product. Civ4 patches fixed bugs. civ4 expansions added to a game that people already felt was great. what many people in the civ5 community are saying is that they concede that civ5 is sub-par and they just hope that future patch/expansions will make it enjoyable. but civ5 is not poor in comparison to civ4 it is simply a singularly lacking game.

@aziantuntija your certainly entitled to your opinion and I believe you genuinely like the game. however, if the only people talking about it were those who are gushing with love for it I dont think there would be such a hustle by firaxis to correct mistakes.

 

[Willowmound]

So there you have it, I just debunked your entire post and clearly it is invalid.

Well done indeed. To think how much faeces we'd avoid in this world if everyone were as scrupulous as you...

 

[adamsolo]

Um. No it doesn't.

Civ5's initial reviews on "major game sites" were ok-to-good. But then again, ANY major release by ANY studio gets ok-to-good on the pro game sites. Proof: Check the reviews of "Elemental: War of Magic". The game is quite possibly the most broken game of the last 20 years, and the average "game reviewer" score is 3 1/2 out of 5.

Civ5 sold 1 million units initially, but poor word of mouth on the game is killing the longer term sales outlook. Over its complete run, Civ4 sold over 4 million units (not counting expansions). To see what that means, go to your local Best Buy or other "game retailer". Check how many copies they have displayed of Civ5. Check how many they have of Civ4 Complete. Notice how those are similar. 90+% of all game purchases are actually the "quiet" kind. The people that buy the game at a store and never, ever login to the forums to vent. Most of Civ5's initial sales went to the fans of the series who either pre-ordered or made a special trip to the store to pick the game up release weekend. I'd *kill* to see the number of sales that have been achieved at the +30 and +60 day window mark. Essentially, Civ5 is like a failed Hollywood summer blockbuster. Good opening weekend, but absolutely no staying power.

DLC *is* bought mostly by the casual gamer, and not "We the Hardcore". But check out the ladder board from the "Civ5 Stats" own webpage. The game is simply not being played, which means that DLC won't be purchased. Example: If they released a downloadable expansion for Civ4 with some nifty stuff for $5 or $10, I'd wager heavily it would outsell the next Civ5 DLC. People still play Civ4 years after release. Civ5 is a ghost forum except for people analyzing the death and catastrophe that is Civ5. With the exception of Dale, who seems to be defending his own part in the Civ5 process, nobody of note seems to be defending Civ5 with anything except, "Well it has potential, if they fix it."

Cash cows only give milk if they can be milked. Civ5 seems to be bleeding fans. How many of the 1,000,000 units sold are still playing the game 90 days later? Half? Likely less, since many players purchase a game, play it to "beat the game", then move on to other stuff. And even hardcore Civ players that get excited about "one more turn" have put the game on the shelf and hope for Civ6.

I'm one of the hardcore fans that stopped playing after 60 days. I'm now waiting for the next big patch, I still think the game can be salvageable if they fix diplomacy, long build times and boredom (nothing to do).

 

[aziantuntija]

@aziantuntija your certainly entitled to your opinion and I believe you genuinely like the game. however, if the only people talking about it were those who are gushing with love for it I dont think there would be such a hustle by firaxis to correct mistakes.

I said:

I just dont get these people that hate the game and belive that nothing cant possibly save it but STILL keep on crawling in civ5 forums and preaching like a maniacs.

Critics is good but going to a some games forum that you absolutely hate and bashing that game saying that nothing cannot ever save that game no matter what is not really a too constructive, its just plain stupid. And yes, i really think that it is even more stupid than going to a some games forum that you like and telling how much you like the game, i mean its not too constructive either but it is less destructive than yelling that ''nothing cannot ever save this game'' at some game forum that you absolutely hate.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

Critics is good but going to a some games forum that you absolutely hate and bashing that game saying that nothing cannot ever save that game no matter what is not really a too constructive, its just plain stupid. And yes, i really think that it is even more stupid than going to a some games forum that you like and telling how much you like the game, i mean its not too constructive either but it is less destructive than yelling that ''nothing cannot ever save this game'' at some game forum that you absolutely hate.

If this were a free game, I would agree with you. But in this case, they aren't just players, they are customers as well. As such, they are fully entitled to complain if they feel their purchase wasn't worth their money.

 

[Eskel]

Do we really know what Civ 5 sale figures are?
I think we cannot say with any dose of ceratinity that it was financial success or failure.
The only number I have found is that of VGChartz, which states 0,59 mln copies were sold.
However, we can assume that this number doesn't take into account electronic way of distribution, e.g. Steam especially.

At GameSpy I have found single number of sells done by Steam in October, which can give us a general hint how could it look through all 3 months since premiere (especially in comparison with data from VGChartz).
In my opinion, there is quite high probability that magical number of 1,000,000 copies was reached already, but with almost high probability that it wasn't.

More interesting question is how would look like future sales of Civ5. Judging on general opinions on Metacritic and Amazon, that are devastatingly different (I mean negative) from critic reviews, alongside with few polls on Civfanatics that show mere 58 up to 65% players were satisfied with game or just 36% will stick with it, I dare say that it doesnt look especially bright. I doubt it overnumbers those of Civ 4 -despite "going for mass market", as Firaxis guys named reasons for their peculiar design decisions.

Saying frankly, I wouldn't recommend this game to my friends at this moment. There is a lot of better games in the market right now to spend 50$ on them, without waiting unspecified amount of time until they grow up to their "potential" to be playable.

 

[Celevin]

@gamemaster77 - i think you use facts as figures just as poorly as duuks lack of them.

Duuk's post is speculation. This is what you're defending and telling people "this is right". Speculation. You're arguing that a speculative post is more on the money than one that has tried to bring forward some numbers. I think I need to say speculation again.

I remember when CIV4 came out many people thought it was absolutly marvelous. yes there was a vocal group of people who disliked it essentially because it was not civ3 and because the release was buggy but the hate was not as widespread and polarized as it is for civ5.

Firstly I remember Civ4 having a bad launch. It was only with patches and expansions that it became what a lot of people recognize as the best in the series.

Secondly you might just be describing the same situation for Civ4 that you did for Civ5.

I remember 3 months ago when Civ5 came out that many people thought it was absolutely marvelous. It was one of the best selling Steam games, and had great reviews at launch. Yes there was a vocal group of people who disliked it essentially because it was not Civ4 and because the release was buggy.

Don't you see? Both games had a group of people who liked it, and disliked it at launch. It's just this time, you're in the latter group, so you think it's now the majority. Really the truth is forums (especially fanatical ones like Civ Fanatics) are filled with the haters more as they are most likely to be ones who don't want to see change, or road bumps, and most fondly remember the previous game's success.



I am a person who dislikes the state of Civ5, yet I'm always finding myself agreeing with the people who defend it, and arguing adamantly against the people who really hate it. I wonder why that is?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I am a person who dislikes the state of Civ5, yet I'm always finding myself agreeing with the people who defend it, and arguing adamantly against the people who really hate it. I wonder why that is?

Is it the ridiculous hyperbole?

 

[SuperJay]

...and arguing adamantly against the people who really hate it.

Just curious, can you point me to some of these people who "really hate it?" You make it sound as if they are everywhere, so it shouldn't be hard to name a handful of them.

EDIT: Regarding the topic, I don't think there was any serious doubt about future patches, was there? Just because Jon left? I think his departure may slow things down a bit, sure, but Firaxis isn't going to abandon the latest iteration of their flagship game just because one guy left the building.

I mean, think about it... what else does Firaxis have going right now? This is basically their only viable commercial product, and Firaxis is useless (and expendable) to Take Two if it's not profitable.

 

[Becephalus]

So there you have it, I just debunked your entire post and clearly it is invalid.

Duuk is just another one of a few dozen trolls camped out on the Civ 5 forums. They are just bitter they didn't get civ 4.5 and that civ5 wasn't great/finished on release (almost no games are, blizzard ones and ones that simultaneously released on console come closest to being done at release).
Moderator Action: Calling other members a "troll" is not allowed here.

I wish they would just stay on the civ4 forum so this one was more usable. I used to come here, but now I mostly stay away because it is just an unmoderated hatefest.

Been playing Civ since 1991 and coming here since Civ 3 release.

 

[aziantuntija]

If this were a free game, I would agree with you. But in this case, they aren't just players, they are customers as well. As such, they are fully entitled to complain if they feel their purchase wasn't worth their money.

I didnt say you dont have the right to complain, everybody has the right to complain about a product that they bought and did not like, at least in the internet you have.


You may even buy a some new kind of food from your local grocery store and after you went home and tasted it you went back to grocery store and start yelling that it is bad because it has blue cheese (1upt), garlic, (ranged attacks) and that it has no lactose (religion). It read on the package and you did read it and you still bought it. I suppose you have the right to complain about it


Seriously talking: Listen, i know civ5 has bugs but as we all heard they are working on them. Its not like it is the only game that has bugs that need to be fixed. If you hated some design aspect(s) of civ5 then why in the hell did you buy it in the first place? They made it very clear that its going to be 1upt, ranged combat, no religion.. etc. Also, im not saying one cant critisize, but IF somebody hates civ5 and honestly thinks that it cannot never be playable game then i must say that i really dont understand what he is trying to accomplish in civ5 forums. Thats what i said in my post.

 

[Kerosene31]

Good news! Even a positive thing can turn negative here...

Glad to see they are still going to support their game.

 

[Hormagaunt]

First of all, thats just wrong. You clearly didn't do ANY research. Civ5 has had great reviews on major gaming sites before and after release. Below are the reviews of the first 5 websites that show up from a simple Google search of "Civ5 review".
Joystiq Review: The game got 5 stars out of 5
IGN Review: The game was ranked as outstanding with a 9 out of 10
PC Gamer Review: The game got a 93 percent score
Gamespot Review: The game was ranked 9 out of 10 by critics and 8.2 out of 10 for users.
G4TV Review: The game was ranked 5 out 5 stars. Users gave it 4.3 out of 5 stars.

Professional (i.e., paid) reviewers for any company / group / magazine / website will almost automatically give a great review for any major company's new release. If they don't, then advertising money won't flow their way and they won't be reviewing any more releases from said major company.

It has been proven (statistical analysis) that such reviews will always trend to the high end of the reviewer's point / star / percentage range. It takes extreme, immediate failure right out of the box for reviewers to give lower values. Civ5 doesn't suffer from such failure; the problems it has are more subtle and start becoming evident after hours of play which reviewers generally don't have the time to give.

Further, in a 10-point scale, one would expect that 5 is average. Doesn't happen that way, though. If the game is average, it gets 8 or a bit better. Again, you can go looking and you'll find the studies that demonstrate this.

... you don't site ANY sources...

Are you sure you want him to, I dunno, put his sources down somewhere? Are you sure you don't want him to cite them?

First of all I think you even named the website wrong. You are most likely referring to Civ5 players. Again, that shows not much research done. The top 5 players have played 40, 105, 46, 101, and 48 games respectively. That is a total of 340 games played by just the top players which is definitely are large amount.

You look at these numbers and see 340 games played. I look at these numbers (40, 46, 48) and see 3 people who've played 40 games against each other. If 5 people get together and play each other 10 times, is that 10 games or 50 by their website? I know which way I'd bet.

I will admit, 40 multiplayer games successfully completed is impressive (for low values of "impressed"), but does the website keep track of games completed, or games started? Statistical information such as this is next to useless; it's incomplete. It's as useless as the information cited in the other poster's missive.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Professional (i.e., paid) reviewers for any company / group / magazine / website will almost automatically give a great review for any major company's new release. If they don't, then advertising money won't flow their way and they won't be reviewing any more releases from said major company.

It has been proven (statistical analysis) that such reviews will always trend to the high end of the reviewer's point / star / percentage range. It takes extreme, immediate failure right out of the box for reviewers to give lower values. Civ5 doesn't suffer from such failure; the problems it has are more subtle and start becoming evident after hours of play which reviewers generally don't have the time to give.

Further, in a 10-point scale, one would expect that 5 is average. Doesn't happen that way, though. If the game is average, it gets 8 or a bit better. Again, you can go looking and you'll find the studies that demonstrate this.





Are you sure you want him to, I dunno, put his sources down somewhere? Are you sure you don't want him to cite them?





You look at these numbers and see 340 games played. I look at these numbers (40, 46, 48) and see 3 people who've played 40 games against each other. If 5 people get together and play each other 10 times, is that 10 games or 50 by their website? I know which way I'd bet.

I will admit, 40 multiplayer games successfully completed is impressive (for low values of "impressed"), but does the website keep track of games completed, or games started? Statistical information such as this is next to useless; it's incomplete. It's as useless as the information cited in the other poster's missive.

But hey, they're patching it. Which is, of course, the purpose of this thread. Or does every thread have to be turned into a thread about why the game sucks vs. why it doesn't suck? Modern etiquette confuses me.

 

[Hormagaunt]

But hey, they're patching it. Which is, of course, the purpose of this thread. Or does every thread have to be turned into a thread about why the game sucks vs. why it doesn't suck? Modern etiquette confuses me.

(As stated by others,) modern etiquette has gone out the window (and been mugged by "my way or the highway").

Yes, they have indeed stated that they'll be patching further. Problem is that I don't think that patches are what the game needs. However, I'm willing to wait (im)patiently for the next patch. By the way, did they fix the problems with that last hotfix? I only update the game when they announce a patch, i.e., 621 and 135.

(What I was doing with my prior post was (sort of) simply responding to GM77 and pointing out that his numbers suffered from the exact same problems as Duuk's numbers.)

PS: How do you pronounce Duuk, anyway? Duke, Duck, or Johnathan?

 

[timtofly]

When it comes to sales figures, is this technically a licensed game? The figures should be on licenses sold, right? From what I have seen there were not that many "boxes" sent out. It would be very misleading though on 2K's part if they only counted the boxes as being sales, since they should be counting licenses.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

But hey, they're patching it. Which is, of course, the purpose of this thread. Or does every thread have to be turned into a thread about why the game sucks vs. why it doesn't suck? Modern etiquette confuses me.

If they sold the right to complain about the game as a DLC, they'd become immensely rich!

 

[SuperJay]

When it comes to sales figures, is this technically a licensed game? The figures should be on licenses sold, right? From what I have seen there were not that many "boxes" sent out. It would be very misleading though on 2K's part if they only counted the boxes as being sales, since they should be counting licenses.

Boxes ARE licenses. None of us own Civ 5, we own licenses to play it. It doesn't matter what delivery medium you used to purchase your license, you're still a licensee and not an owner. You only own software in the legal sense if you actually possess the source code and assets. (I feel like I repeat this constantly, sorry.)

But to the root of your question, I'm not sure what sales figures you're referring to. I'm sure 2K is counting all sales as sales regardless of the whether they were digital downloads or physical media.

 

[Anthropoid]

Instead of quibbling about speculations about sales numbers and the validity of reviews as a basis to argue about the fate of the game, what about accounting for why Shafer left?

That right there suggests to me Civ5 is a major failure. I have a hard time believing Shafer would've left/been canned if Civ5 really was "a successs."

 

[Dralix]

You're replacing one speculation with another. We have no idea why he left.