Player stats, sales, and reception discussion

[Leucarum]

I don't think I'm nitpicking when I'm pointing out a significant difference between adding to a game to fulfill what it was advertised to be and removing features because they were poorly received. That's a pretty big difference.

And you're perfectly entitled to feel that way.

There are no two games which turned themselves around in exactly the same way. Feel free to stack up your cases for why cyberpunk, victoria 3, or no mans sky don't match your criteria (heck even world of warcraft appears to be reinventing itself). None of them face the exact same problems as Civ7, I agree, but I'd take any of them as examples of games where the devs made significant changes, overhauling the game to meet player expectations and which succeeded.

That turnaround is what I hope we get from Civ7 in the long term.

 

[Sagax]

I think it would be fair to say that such a change would be the most drastic post-release change they've ever done. I'm trying to recall a change industry-wide that would match it and I can't come up with one.

Would Final Fantasy XIV count? (Bear with the AI voices)

On a rewatch, my monkey brain sees some uncanny similarities in the first half between XIV and Civ7. There is also a serious, much longer three-part documentary about it, if you’re curious.

 

[AD1730]

Would Final Fantasy XIV count? (Bear with the AI voices)

On a rewatch, my monkey brain sees some uncanny similarities in the first half between XIV and Civ7. There is also a serious, much longer three-part documentary about it, if you’re curious.

That's not a series I'm into, so I can't say.

 

[VGT]

Would Final Fantasy XIV count?

Actually might be quite good call. I wasn't there when it failed, but I played a bit with Realm Reborn and tried to catch up on it and indeed not only they managed to rebound from failed launch but did it by nicely incorporating it into the story.

 

[Sagax]

That's not a series I'm into, so I can't say.

Then a quick rundown from someone who is playing the current iteration of Final Fantasy XIV.

Assuming you are generally aware of the significance of the Final Fantasy franchise, XIV 1.0 was so infamously bad that it jeopardized the series’s future and reputation, while almost leaving the publisher bankrupt. The new game director worked to patch the game as much as they could, but ultimately made the call to re-build the entire game from the ground up - as they saw it as the only way to get things right and restore Final Fantasy’s reputation, as opposed to further patching and polishing a fundamentally flawed game. The 1.0 version was wiped out and replaced by 2.0 on a new engine and foundations, with story writers also coming up with an in-game narrative explaining the change. The risk paid off, with XIV now being considered the second biggest long-lasting MMO around, only behind World of Warcraft (not included in this story: a period around summer 2022 when the a ton of WoW players moved to XIV amidst all the mess ups by Activision-Blizzard).

I’d say that completely rebuilding an MMO is a much larger scale endeavor than any theoretical Civ 7 overhaul can be.

 

[DocRock]

I was disappointed by that. I'm not a big Stellaris or PDX player, but I thought the three modes of travel was an interesting and unique feature. My understanding is the AI struggled with it, though.

Not only that, one of the drive technologies was so vastly superior to the others that everybody used it and they didn't find a way around it. They wanted players to have the ability to block attacking Fleets with defendable space stations but the jump technology made every defense impossible.

I hated that change, too. I also hated the pop change. I don't think I generally like change.

 

[AD1730]

Then a quick rundown from someone who is playing the current iteration of Final Fantasy XIV.

Assuming you are generally aware of the significance of the Final Fantasy franchise, XIV 1.0 was so infamously bad that it jeopardized the series’s future and reputation, while almost leaving the publisher bankrupt. The new game director worked to patch the game as much as they could, but ultimately made the call to re-build the entire game from the ground up - as they saw it as the only way to get things right and restore Final Fantasy’s reputation, as opposed to further patching and polishing a fundamentally flawed game. The 1.0 version was wiped out and replaced by 2.0 on a new engine and foundations, with story writers also coming up with an in-game narrative explaining the change. The risk paid off, with XIV now being considered the second biggest long-lasting MMO around, only behind World of Warcraft (not included in this story: a period around summer 2022 when the a ton of WoW players moved to XIV amidst all the mess ups by Activision-Blizzard).

I’d say that completely rebuilding an MMO is a much larger scale endeavor than any theoretical Civ 7 overhaul can be.

From how you describe it, that sounds like a bigger overhaul than whatever faces Firaxis with Civ 7. Appreciate the rundown.

 

[AD1730]

Not only that, one of the drive technologies was so vastly superior to the others that everybody used it and they didn't find a way around it. They wanted players to have the ability to block attacking Fleets with defendable space stations but the jump technology made every defense impossible.

I hated that change, too. I also hated the pop change. I don't think I generally like change.

My main problem with the Stellaris change was how quickly Wiz discounted any less drastic solutions to the problem. I get there was an issue with the ability to fortify empire borders. However, there were other ways to go about it that would have been less drastic and had similar outcomes. Sort of reminds me of what Firaxis did with Civ 7.

 

[Dreadnought]

The downside to this approach from Take Two's perspective, of course, being that Civ7 2.0 would most likely take at least the work of a major expansion, and it would have to be released as a free update to entice sales.

Do we think Civ's reputation would be broken by a quick pivot to Civ8 instead?

 

[aelf]

Yes.

 

[trev1972]

I just watched the latest video on the upcoming patch notes.
It seems like they are fixing irritations (and adding extra features).

Do people think they will be enough to turn things around?.

For me, being able to play the same civ (even if that civ evolves) from start to finish is a deal breaker. But maybe the fixes they are implementing will bring other players back?

 

[MutilationWave]

The downside to this approach from Take Two's perspective, of course, being that Civ7 2.0 would most likely take at least the work of a major expansion, and it would have to be released as a free update to entice sales.

Do we think Civ's reputation would be broken by a quick pivot to Civ8 instead?

If they stopped 7 and pivoted to 8 then they both would suck. They've guaranteed two expansions to 7, which would be incredibly rushed. Or they don't do one or both expansions, infuriating the people who bought the game. On top of all that 8 would be rushed in its entirety to make civ 6 version 2. Just a terrible idea no matter how it goes.

 

[MutilationWave]

I just watched the latest video on the upcoming patch notes.
It seems like they are fixing irritations (and adding extra features).

Do people think they will be enough to turn things around?.

For me, being able to play the same civ (even if that civ evolves) from start to finish is a deal breaker. But maybe the fixes they are implementing will bring other players back?

Unfortunately playing the same civ all the way through would be impossible without a total rework and rebalance of every civ. Right now civs only have to be balanced against other civs from their era.

I'm already thinking of how insane Mississippians would be if they retained their unique unit ability. Likewise some modern civs have abilities that would be broken in ancient, etc.

 

[trev1972]

Unfortunately playing the same civ all the way through would be impossible without a total rework and rebalance of every civ. Right now civs only have to be balanced against other civs from their era.

I'm already thinking of how insane Mississippians would be if they retained their unique unit ability. Likewise some modern civs have abilities that would be broken in ancient, etc.

Yep i agree it isnt going to happen, i did try the game (it was gifted to me) but i just could not get into it , i could write a list of things i disliked (such as the tiny, crowded starting positions and rubber banding) but for me civ switching is the main thing i hated.

But others who dislike the UI, or the lack of a one more turn, or lack of resource variety etc may well come back and improve the ratings if they keep fixing things as in the next update?

 

[MutilationWave]

Yep i agree it isnt going to happen, i did try the game (it was gifted to me) but i just could not get into it , i could write a list of things i disliked (such as the tiny, crowded starting positions and rubber banding) but for me civ switching is the main thing i hated.

But others who dislike the UI, or the lack of a one more turn, or lack of resource variety etc may well come back and improve the ratings if they keep fixing things as in the next update?

I hope the update is good and I hope people come back. I'm sorry you bounced off it so hard. It seems less drastic of a change than hexagons and 1UPT and the community largely got over those changes. Many people, including me, now think they were good changes. At the time there were people predicting the death of the series over that.

 

[AD1730]

If they stopped 7 and pivoted to 8 then they both would suck. They've guaranteed two expansions to 7, which would be incredibly rushed. Or they don't do one or both expansions, infuriating the people who bought the game. On top of all that 8 would be rushed in its entirety to make civ 6 version 2. Just a terrible idea no matter how it goes.

I think the minimum amount of time they can give Civ 7 is four years. Anything less than that risks further harm to consumer trust in the brand.

 

[MutilationWave]

It all depends on if Take-Two is willing to invest in civilization even with the dire player count and Grand Theft Auto coming out.

Hopefully somebody high up at Take-Two is a diehard civ fan.

 

[Krikkit1]

I hope the update is good and I hope people come back. I'm sorry you bounced off it so hard. It seems less drastic of a change than hexagons and 1UPT and the community largely got over those changes. Many people, including me, now think they were good changes. At the time there were people predicting the death of the series over that.

There are also those who don't think they were good changes, but still enjoyed civ 5+ overall.

 

[MutilationWave]

There are also those who don't think they were good changes, but still enjoyed civ 5+ overall.

Can you imagine playing with square tiles at this point? Seems so barbaric. Although I will say that I miss being able to use the numpad for unit movement, that felt great. I would probably be the only audience, but if someone made a nice mouse with a hex arrangement of keys I would love that. Or a hex where the numpad is on a keyboard. Although they'd have to give us all our hotkeys back to be able to play with minimum mousing.

 

[Krikkit1]

Can you imagine playing with square tiles at this point? Seems so barbaric. Although I will say that I miss being able to use the numpad for unit movement, that felt great. I would probably be the only audience, but if someone made a nice mouse with a hex arrangement of keys I would love that. Or a hex where the numpad is on a keyboard. Although they'd have to give us all our hotkeys back to be able to play with minimum mousing.

Square tiles v. hexes aren't as big an issue as 1UPT v. Stacks