"More patches are on their way"

[Duuk]

Well. I go away for an evening and some nub shows up and discussing my "lack of citations", so here we go:

Take2 hasn't released sales figures for Civ5. Being in sales and marketing, I find that amusing because when sales are good, you trumpet them from the heavens. So let's look at the information we DO have:

Take2's quarterly earnings for Q3 2010 - Take2 cites Red Dead Redemption as the driving force behind their profitability. They have not released Q4 numbers yet, obviously. We won't have firm results on what Civ5 has actually sold for some time.

According to a 2008 listing by Take2 when EA was attempting to acquire them, Civ4 had sold, as of 2+ years ago, 3 million units. I chose ONLY to list factually cited sales figures for you here, although Civ4.com lists the game as having sold over _6_ million units.

Do a search in Take2's Q3 report and you'll find that the "Civilization Series" sales figures are not listed at ALL, Civilization is listed only as "one of many intellectual properties" they own, and they include CivRev and "Civilization Network" as potential for the series. Civ5 is not mentioned by name once in the entire report.

I'm not a computer programmer, so I have no idea how to fix Civ5's code problems. I *am*, however, a sales and marketing guy. And I can tell you if Civ5 wasn't a black eye for Take2 they'd be shouting from the rooftops.

As a matter of fact, for November Take2's one success was NBA2k11. You'd think Take2 would be trumpeting Civ5 if it had moved a million units. I'm inclined, after researching and reviewing my numbers, to admit I was mistaken in sales figures.

I can't prove that Civ5 has moved 1 million units.

 

[Jourin]

Reference the 1 milliion in sales number. I have heard that number on this forum for the past month - that Civ V has exceeded 1 million, but looking at the officidal numbers, I doubt very much that has happened. From my analysis, the number is probably between 750K-950K, although only 350K in sales in factual. The rest is based on proportions and sales of similar games based on the assumption that Civ V is justly slightly less popular. If it truely bombed (which I don't think it did), then it didn't crest 500,000 in sales, but even if it did well, I still don't think it topped 1 million yet.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Well. I go away for an evening and some nub shows up and discussing my "lack of citations", so here we go:

Take2 hasn't released sales figures for Civ5. Being in sales and marketing, I find that amusing because when sales are good, you trumpet them from the heavens. So let's look at the information we DO have:

Take2's quarterly earnings for Q3 2010 - Take2 cites Red Dead Redemption as the driving force behind their profitability. They have not released Q4 numbers yet, obviously. We won't have firm results on what Civ5 has actually sold for some time.

According to a 2008 listing by Take2 when EA was attempting to acquire them, Civ4 had sold, as of 2+ years ago, 3 million units. I chose ONLY to list factually cited sales figures for you here, although Civ4.com lists the game as having sold over _6_ million units.

Do a search in Take2's Q3 report and you'll find that the "Civilization Series" sales figures are not listed at ALL, Civilization is listed only as "one of many intellectual properties" they own, and they include CivRev and "Civilization Network" as potential for the series. Civ5 is not mentioned by name once in the entire report.

I'm not a computer programmer, so I have no idea how to fix Civ5's code problems. I *am*, however, a sales and marketing guy. And I can tell you if Civ5 wasn't a black eye for Take2 they'd be shouting from the rooftops.

As a matter of fact, for November Take2's one success was NBA2k11. You'd think Take2 would be trumpeting Civ5 if it had moved a million units. I'm inclined, after researching and reviewing my numbers, to admit I was mistaken in sales figures.

I can't prove that Civ5 has moved 1 million units.

First of can we please refrain from the personal attacks, however moderate please? I also didn't report you in case a moderator does see. I would also like to politely ask if you would refresh my mind as to what the sources were trying to help you prove? This post has gone a long way and it is hard to keep track of everything. Were you just trying to cite your sales figures?

 

[Anthropoid]

Thanks for those numbers Jourin. Very nice.

However, I think I'm leaning toward Duuk's interpretations of these numbers more. Granted I don't know the ballpark numbers for these types of products, but being still yet to reach "Gold" strikes me as poor performance so far.

If I understand correctly, it briefly went up to #2 in sales then, in the span of one month it went from 25th in US sales to 30th and then more recently below 30th? Correct me if I'm wrong, but for one of the most famous series ever, not staying the top ten for several weeks if not months strikes me as a relatively unsuccessful launch.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

To break up the numbers discussion with some snotty-nosed unfounded opinion: Patches are nice. But what 2K Greg did not say is if they are going to add the sort of depth and complexity that would be necessary to turn this game into something that is as satisfying as Civ IV BtS -- something with a long-term hold. This is what would bring me back to Civ V, instead of resigning myself to wait for Civ VI while bitterly complaining that the world is being dumbed down and next thing you know they'll be releasing a version of chess without the knight, too complicated, nobody can remember how it moves, even Death in Terry Pratchett, must be all that TV, etc. etc.

Talk to me about updates and expansions, not patches.

 

[TW_Honorius]

Dont know if this was already posted, but CIV V is the third most played game on Steam right now and has been for a while:

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

And it is the 7th most bought game this week:

http://store.steampowered.com/feeds/weeklytopsellers.xml

And it is the 14th top seller, dont know the date range:

http://store.steampowered.com/

And a sales figure for people who bought steam in October:

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/113/1136646p1.html

And here is one last chart with some data:

http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/43507/sid-meiers-civilization-v/

 

[Androrc the Orc]

Dont know if this was already posted, but CIV V is the third most played game on Steam right now and has been for a while:

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Of course it is! Everyone who is playing the game is playing on Steam, so the game has 100% of it's player base on Steam, something that the other games on Steam by far and large don't have!

 

[tom2050]

If we remove your personal speculation from the post, it stays as "Civ5 sold 1 million units". While we can assume DLC hasn't been making them much money, we don't know that for certain. For all we know they have sold 500,000 units of each DLC. For all we know they only sold 1,000 units of each DLC. You're right in your logic, but the evidence isn't there. All that we can say is everything before your but, which is "1 million units in 3 months".

I'm in the "It has potential if they fix it" crowd. I believe that the mistakes made are very hard to correct, but I also believe that there have been some changes from Civ4 that were absolutely needed to make. It just might take a few patches and an expansion to work out.

If we remove your personal speculation from the post, it doesn't say anything.

 

[Sock Bramson]

I kind of feel like a dick for getting a schadenfreude kick off of the fact that there are people who payed the same amount of money as me for this game but haven't gained nearly as much satisfaction from it as I have.

Fortunately, long-winded sentences help dull my senses and allow me to ignore the fact that I am spiting any naysayers every time I play and enjoy Civ5.

Now, for more constructive counter-arguments that will be summarily ignored (hence, they shall be abridged): Civ5 is still selling and making Fireaxis monies, patches are still coming out, the game is still only a few months old and has plenty of time to mature (through patches and [more importantly IMO] user-made content), and the game is still worth playing in the meantime.

 

[SidMeierGroupy]

I'm behind the times. What happened to Jon Schaeffer? Did they can his boney ass?
And no, patches won't fix the game, since the problems are more related to actual gameplay and concepts.
.... Though seeing your recently completed pyramid floating in a water hex isn't exactly good for game emersion.

 

[aziantuntija]

If we remove your personal speculation from the post, it doesn't say anything.

Yes it does, it says alot of things you just have to read it and understand it.

 

[aziantuntija]

And no, patches won't fix the game, since the problems are more related to actual gameplay and concepts.

Thats funny. Because that is exactly what i feel about civ4.

This is what i asked from SuperJay but he doesnt seem to be willing to answer me:

So can you tell me your civ5 flaws?

In the meantime i will tell you my civ4 flaws:

I took this list from another thread where i writed this.

Civ4 flaws:

Brainless stack combat smashing, insane unit spam, square tiles combined with lack of ZoC so that enemy has lots of change to slip trough your good defence positions ----> go wait in the city for some unit smashing party, religion wich almost solely determined the diplomatic relations, the suicide siege weapons wich engaged in melee combat against other units, almost meaningless navy (at least much more meaningless than what civ5 has), road spam, missionary spam and executive spam (latter only in BTS), cartoony unit graphics and endless strategic resources.


Neither of us isnt of course right because they are just our own opinions, but still i would like to see what do you answer.

EDIT: Oh i forgot the useless espionage gimmick in Bts, well it wasnt really a flaw because you could just ignore it, so it didnt really bother me too much

So IMO, civ4 has ton of flaws wich cannot be fixed with any amount of patches.

 

[SidMeierGroupy]

Most of your issues on Civ IV can/have been tweaked with mods.
No mods will fix Civ V. It is a completely different game, an ugly, stunted, club-footed bastard child of the franchise.

 

[aziantuntija]

Most of your issues on Civ IV can/have been tweaked with mods.

Im sorry but i really dont belive that most of the problems in civ4 that i listed are fixed by mods.

No mods will fix Civ V. It is a completely different game, an ugly, stunted, club-footed bastard child of the franchise.

Can you give me specific problems? This really seems to be a hard task, to name the specific problems that civ5 has. Well i can name three at the top of my head: Combat AI should be better, AI should build less anti-air units and instead build more infantry and tanks and the game is still crashing here and there.

Im sure i will find more flaws from civ5 in time, but right now to me, civ5 flaws arent nearly as bad as civ4 flaws.

 

[SidMeierGroupy]

Im sorry but i really dont belive that most of the problems in civ4 that i listed are fixed by mods.



Can you give me specific problems?.

Learn how to use the search option, up above. This:

Can you give me specific problems?

is akin to sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting BLAH BLAH BLAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Moderator Action: Not much of a post. It really doesn't contribute to the conversation. His was a legitimate question.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aziantuntija]

Learn how to use the search option, up above. This:

Can you give me specific problems?

is akin to sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting BLAH BLAH BLAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

So you are not going to tell me whats your problem with civ5? Ok

So you just rant about how bad civ5 is but you dont seem to be able to point out these flaws. Nice.

 

[SidMeierGroupy]

So you are not going to tell me whats your problem with civ5? Ok

So you just rant about how bad civ5 is but you dont seem to be able to point out these flaws. Nice.

Reported as trolling. Keep it up!

I'll be nice and assume you're new to the amazing internetz. Go to the Civ5 - General Discussions, then pick a thread, any thread. Don't worry, if you have your way there'll be another Civ ported to your xbox for you.

 

[Horizons]

If Firaxis continue to issue patches free of charge, I would interpret it as an attempt by them to improve the game for those of us who already bought it and I would look kindly on them ... but this is an evil and corrupt world, and my guess is that any big changes now will arrive via DLC.

And if next year is going to be as depressing and awful as they say it will be, then I ain't got no more money for games.

 

[aziantuntija]

SidMeierGroupy, i dont understand what are you trying to accomplish. I just asked what things you dont like about civ5.

 

[SidMeierGroupy]

If Firaxis continue to issue patches free of charge, I would interpret it as an attempt by them to improve the game for those of us who already bought it and I would look kindly on them ... but this is an evil and corrupt world, and my guess is that any big changes now will arrive via DLC.

And if next year is going to be as depressing and awful as they say it will be, then I ain't got no more money for games.

Agreed on the financial note. I can't affored to shell out 50.00 on bombs for the new year. I don't hold out hopes for improvements for DLC's. All DLC's so far should have been original game content, but as it stands they're cash cows. The only time I've liked the DlC idea is with SC: Conviction, where they were free, numerous and weekly. Somehow I don't think there will be as many or as vigorous patches as there were for BTS.

<snip>

Moderator Action: Snippy personal comments delted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889