Player stats, sales, and reception discussion

[Dreadnought]

I just can’t see how a recovery happens without tremendous amounts of PR. Even if the game is on sale, who actively buys a game with mixed reviews on steam? I don’t know what the endgame is if the game continues to limp on with 8000 players at a time.

 

[King of Prussia]

Slapping more content or features onto a product that most people already dislike isn’t a winning formula. The problem lies with the core gameplay, not a lack of content. They need to fix the standard game before releasing any DLC. I can’t remember ever buying DLC for a game I didn’t like - and no DLC has ever convinced me to buy a game I wasn’t already interested in.

Amusingly enough in 7s case, lack of civs due to being split into 3 eras is an issue. If they ever want to have a "historical" progression, then they will need a lot more civs. Outside of mods, that will only come from DLC, and i doubt it would be free.

 

[protocol7]

It’s getting hard to imagine how to turn it around at this point. The DLC for civ7 will have to be nearly an order of magnitude more well loved and bring in more players than all the DLC for civ6 combined, just to catch up to civ6 much less surpass it. They have said they are working on what they think is most important for civ7 in the patches, but the patches are having essentially no effect, so either they don’t understand what people want, or the rest of the world has just already moved on except for the 5 or so thousand people “having a blast” at any given time. They don’t prioritise console fixes or mod support so that can’t be where most of their happiest customers are.

One theory I’ve heard is they can make it a discount bargain game, and just sell it as cheaply as possible to find an audience. But I feel like it would be sad if civ became one of those games your grandma buys you out of a bin of cds at Walmart. Otherwise the theories like “maybe there’s millions of players in china who love it and play it all the time we don’t know about it” are getting more and more out there as they continue to have no evidence, and yet need to be more and more a larger share of the customers to matter.

 

[trev1972]

I think the initial lack of polish and the UI at launch is a big part of the issue. I agree with those who say a significant number of players just do not like the core game however. I simply cannot see them doing a 'classic mode' or anything like that so i am not sure what will happen. If the game is unsuccessful and the DLC doesn't sell well, then perhaps one expansion and then onto developing civ 8?

BTW i have read somewhere that content creators expressed concern about the ages system and civ switching but that the feedback was dismissed but i cant find the article anywhere. Does anyone have a link or am i imagining it??

 

[Kyriakos]

Can you imagine Civ8 keeping all of the controversial traits which have been piling? ^^
1 UPT, Deck-building, Civ changes with era - and maybe adding something new like (ala Victoria III) next to no actual army control on the map.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I do, I would just have fair amount of 'human' options available and then code the AI to fake human-like responses based on their personality.

Yes, but actually no. When Civ5 base game had human-like behavior for AI, it caused major backlash. AI backstabbing players after long time of good relations caused a lot of frustration. Significant amount of Civ players don't treat AI and human opponents in the same way.

 

[Patine]

Classic case of going for an audience you'd like to have rather than focusing on the one you have. I feel extremely confident that this strategy won't work and that the stats we've seen thus far back me up. We've seen time and time again with entertainment companies doing this kind of thing over the past decade. It rarely works.

It's called, "firing your players." Wizards of the Coast did it with D&D 5th Edition, and great hew and cry resulted.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Some more feedback from outside of the civfanatic, Reddit and steam sources which usually gets cited:

Sid Meier’s Civilization

Today’s patch for #Civ7 addresses some late-game performance drops, brings some stability improvements, and includes a handful of changes in response to your feedback. We’re also heads-down on our...

www.facebook.com

I suspect this is more likely to be the casual audiences voices on facebook. The comments are overwhelmingly negative, with a large cohort expressing a wish for a refund.

Top comment is at least offering constructive feedback on how to save the game with Simon Bolivar feet pics

Has anyone found a place which is net positive about the game post release?

 

[MutilationWave]

Can you imagine Civ8 keeping all of the controversial traits which have been piling? ^^
1 UPT, Deck-building, Civ changes with era - and maybe adding something new like (ala Victoria III) next to no actual army control on the map.

I swear to god if they go back to doomstacks I'm done with civ forever. Commanders are the best thing to happen to civ, they fix most of the issues with 1UPT if you use them tactically. If they got rid of losing all movement when entering ZOC they would be pretty much perfect.

 

[Kyriakos]

Can't have doom-stacked units without having units in the first place

 

[0urBall]

Commanders are the best thing to happen to civ

Not if the AI can't use them effectively, which seems to me to be what I've seen so far. Then all you get are carpets of doom instead of stacks as units are so cheap for the AI to build on higher levels

 

[protocol7]

Carpets of doom with full commanders wandering around unprotected on separate tiles, waiting to be sniped. :/

 

[MutilationWave]

Not if the AI can't use them effectively, which seems to me to be what I've seen so far. Then all you get are carpets of doom instead of stacks as units are so cheap for the AI to build on higher levels

That's fair. I like the difficulty of using my commander tactics to beat their infinite waves of units that are often one tier above mine and +8 CS from deity. I would like it more if they could use commanders better though.

Right now it gives me the feeling of a special forces group taking on an army, which is fun for me.

 

[protocol7]

On deity I get more of a feeling of a single machine gun casually mowing down waves of endless irregulars released unarmed from the local looney bins. It’s good commander xp though. I do prioritise war score though so they are never + much CS. Maybe I should try using melee only or something to make it more interesting? How do you not just endlessly waste them with ranged units in superior positions?

 

[MutilationWave]

On deity I get more of a feeling of a single machine gun casually mowing down waves of endless irregulars released unarmed from the local looney bins. It’s good commander xp though. I do prioritise war score though so they are never + much CS. Maybe I should try using melee only or something to make it more interesting? How do you not just endlessly waste them with ranged units in superior positions?

It's more fun to get into the thick of it. Lower tier range versus knights or lancers in exploration specifically is like throwing apples at an ogre. You gotta get in there dirty with your own cavalry, infantry, or both depending on civ. Then the game is how do I find a place to heal and the time to do it. Will the reinforcements arrive in time? How many casualties can I survive, and when? It's not the optimal way to play but it's fun for me.

 

[VGT]

BTW i have read somewhere that content creators expressed concern about the ages system and civ switching but that the feedback was dismissed but i cant find the article anywhere. Does anyone have a link or am i imagining it??

I recall reading it too, but I think I read this on the forum here. If original poster of this information didn't make it out of thin air, then source will be probably some youtuber stream or video. Might be hard to track down.

Only place I encounter mentioning it in some way outside of here was in one of potato's videos he mentioned that was discussing it with the team and told them this is so much on controversial side it will either be great success or utter failure. No middle ground.

 

[GeneralZift]

Yes, but actually no. When Civ5 base game had human-like behavior for AI, it caused major backlash. AI backstabbing players after long time of good relations caused a lot of frustration. Significant amount of Civ players don't treat AI and human opponents in the same way.

Well they don't because they shouldn't because the developers give no indication that the AI is supposed to be interesting or actual adversary in these later games. They're basically cardboard puppet cutouts who can play the game decently well but don't provide any 'high-level' nuance in terms of diplomatic gameplay.

What got me hooked to Civ was actually this backstab mechanic you are talking about. It's really ironic, because only once I experienced friendly Alexander turn into Evil Alexander did I figure - wow this game is kinda cool, I didn't expect that.

And for that reason I want the ai to continue to surprise me, that's my form of replayability.
Now, I can critique the Civ5 AI, and on higher difficulties they become unfairly backstabbing and unrealistic. However, the concept itself is solid and could be improved - not ripped out entirely.

 

[MutilationWave]

Well they don't because they shouldn't because the developers give no indication that the AI is supposed to be interesting or actual adversary in these later games. They're basically cardboard puppet cutouts who can play the game decently well but don't provide any 'high-level' nuance in terms of diplomatic gameplay.

What got me hooked to Civ was actually this backstab mechanic you are talking about. It's really ironic, because only once I experienced friendly Alexander turn into Evil Alexander did I figure - wow this game is kinda cool, I didn't expect that.

And for that reason I want the ai to continue to surprise me, that's my form of replayability.
Now, I can critique the Civ5 AI, and on higher difficulties they become unfairly backstabbing and unrealistic. However, the concept itself is solid and could be improved - not ripped out entirely.

On my first 1.2 game, I was friendly with Napoleon and got open borders to go south and raze Augustus. When my units were stretched across his territory still packed in commanders, he declared surprise war and attacked from all sides. It was awesome.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well they don't because they shouldn't because the developers give no indication that the AI is supposed to be interesting or actual adversary in these later games. They're basically cardboard puppet cutouts who can play the game decently well but don't provide any 'high-level' nuance in terms of diplomatic gameplay.

What got me hooked to Civ was actually this backstab mechanic you are talking about. It's really ironic, because only once I experienced friendly Alexander turn into Evil Alexander did I figure - wow this game is kinda cool, I didn't expect that.

And for that reason I want the ai to continue to surprise me, that's my form of replayability.
Now, I can critique the Civ5 AI, and on higher difficulties they become unfairly backstabbing and unrealistic. However, the concept itself is solid and could be improved - not ripped out entirely.

Those are 2 different directions.

For MP-oriented game you don't need any complex diplomacy model. Peace, war and temporary non-aggression pact are maximum you need. Some games go even without it, just setting all players into constant war, unless they belong to predefined teams. For StarCraft or AoE that's enough.

But if games try to recreate complexity of real world politics, as many SP-focused (especially historically-themed) games do, that's not enough. The game needs to have more complex agreements and some mechanics to make those agreements worth keeping.

The brilliancy of Civ7 diplomacy is that it has the same mechanics apply for MP and SP. You could backstab someone you're in good relations with (whenever it's human or AI players) and AI could do the same. But the player who declares such war will pay with increased war weariness. So, there are such things as good/bad relations and they have real impact. And you have real strategic choices like if you want to go to war with someone you've built good relations with, you could land surprise attack, or you could spend efforts on lowering your relations first. It's cool.

Sure, it's possible to create a game like civilization with StarCraft-like diplomacy, but I'm pretty sure for majority of the Civ players it would look like a disaster.

 

[AD1730]

It’s getting hard to imagine how to turn it around at this point. The DLC for civ7 will have to be nearly an order of magnitude more well loved and bring in more players than all the DLC for civ6 combined, just to catch up to civ6 much less surpass it. They have said they are working on what they think is most important for civ7 in the patches, but the patches are having essentially no effect, so either they don’t understand what people want, or the rest of the world has just already moved on except for the 5 or so thousand people “having a blast” at any given time. They don’t prioritise console fixes or mod support so that can’t be where most of their happiest customers are.

One theory I’ve heard is they can make it a discount bargain game, and just sell it as cheaply as possible to find an audience. But I feel like it would be sad if civ became one of those games your grandma buys you out of a bin of cds at Walmart. Otherwise the theories like “maybe there’s millions of players in china who love it and play it all the time we don’t know about it” are getting more and more out there as they continue to have no evidence, and yet need to be more and more a larger share of the customers to matter.

I don’t see how they do either. The most cited cases of game turnarounds (No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk 2077) are both cases where what was released didn’t conform to what was promised. It’s hard to claim that Civ 7 wasn’t what they promised the game would be.