Player stats, sales, and reception discussion

[protocol7]

Yeah it's performing closer to Civ: Beyond Earth at this point

Wow, I thought there was no way this is true but actually civ7 is performing super similarly to Beyond Earth. I included Civ6 for comparison, which is in theory more like what you'd expect I guess from a mainline Civ game (though, in theory the gaming market is larger so maybe they were hoping for even better than Civ6?) It's also kind of interesting that the peaks for Civ7 never reached the troughs of Civ6.

This is the first three months of each game's life after release:

 

[Smegger213]

So, the active player numbers have tanked to an all time low.
Oh dear, never mind eh?
They shouldn't have made a trash game with so many immersion breaking mechanics.
Yes, I am still occasionally playing it. But I definitely am not enjoying it.

Frankly, by the time I get to the Modern Age, I get bored out of my crust.
In my latest game, I am at the start of the Exploration Age.
I got so hacked off with the behaviour of the AI Civ's on my continent, that I wiped them all out except for one.
Now, me and the other Civ on my continent are happy at peace together.
In every game I have played so far, I end up feeling that my only course of action, is to resort to the Military Conquest way of doing things.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm still enjoying the game. Fractal maps keep things somewhat interesting for me (won't ever play continents again that's for sure). That said I will take a little break until the next patch releases. Especially since patch 8 of a certain little game by Larian is expected to release today, so I may be a little busy.

Interesting comparison to BE. I'm assuming those spikes are patch releases. It's interesting they did some of these changes in order to try to keep things interesting in the modern age, apparently to try to increase longevity of the game, when in reality this game seems to have little longevity. Even myself I can't see myself logging in nearly the hours I did with Civ 6 (which is probably around 4000). I think shoehorning people into certain gameplay to get those legacy points was a huge mistake (not the civ switching imho). This game doesn't have the sandbox quality of Civ6. Civ 6 I could mess around for hours trying different things and really only had to focus on victory until the end (even up to emperor level you could get away doing this). Sometimes I would just focus on getting as much gold and production as possible, especially when playing Germany. Doing that in this game seems pointless with the age mechanic.

 

[UWHabs]

I'm still enjoying the game. Fractal maps keep things somewhat interesting for me (won't ever play continents again that's for sure). That said I will take a little break until the next patch releases. Especially since patch 8 of a certain little game by Larian is expected to release today, so I may be a little busy.

Interesting comparison to BE. I'm assuming those spikes are patch releases. It's interesting they did some of these changes in order to try to keep things interesting in the modern age, apparently to try to increase longevity of the game, when in reality this game seems to have little longevity. Even myself I can't see myself logging in nearly the hours I did with Civ 6 (which is probably around 4000). I think shoehorning people into certain gameplay to get those legacy points was a huge mistake (not the civ switching imho). This game doesn't have the sandbox quality of Civ6. Civ 6 I could mess around for hours trying different things and really only had to focus on victory until the end (even up to emperor level you could get away doing this). Sometimes I would just focus on getting as much gold and production as possible, especially when playing Germany. Doing that in this game seems pointless with the age mechanic.

I do think for long-term viability, they need to vary the goals in each era. I mean, frankly, each civ has so many customizations, making sure each civ has one goal in their era which they make unique only makes sense to have as well. Like give Bulgaria one military point for every 20 tiles they pillage. Maybe don't have the Inca get points in distant lands, but give them points instead for cities captured or settled next to a mountain.

Another option, make the conditions way harder, and but give a second counter for each of the conditions. So in the ancient era, maybe instead of 7 wonders, your goal is 12 points, where you get one point for each wonder, and one point for each settlement with at least 5 quarters, for example (or like one point for each social policy slot you have unlocked). Instead of 20 resources, it's 40 total points, where you get one for each resource and 2 for each trade route.

Or, the final option, have a few distinct paths you can choose from, and a set point in the era, you pick which one you want. So maybe Ancient Era science you have 2 options for goals - one option is display 10 codices, another option is to slot 10 specialists into your cities, and when you discover Writing, you choose which of the 2 paths you want. That way, you have a potential choice in which direction you want to take your empire.

It would be nice if I could ignore the distant lands maybe every 3rd or 4th game, without basically sacrificing 2 victory paths. Let me choose which games I want to worry about religion in. That alone would probably double up how much you can play a sandbox game without being too forced down a path.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I do think for long-term viability, they need to vary the goals in each era. I mean, frankly, each civ has so many customizations, making sure each civ has one goal in their era which they make unique only makes sense to have as well. Like give Bulgaria one military point for every 20 tiles they pillage. Maybe don't have the Inca get points in distant lands, but give them points instead for cities captured or settled next to a mountain.

Another option, make the conditions way harder, and but give a second counter for each of the conditions. So in the ancient era, maybe instead of 7 wonders, your goal is 12 points, where you get one point for each wonder, and one point for each settlement with at least 5 quarters, for example (or like one point for each social policy slot you have unlocked). Instead of 20 resources, it's 40 total points, where you get one for each resource and 2 for each trade route.

Or, the final option, have a few distinct paths you can choose from, and a set point in the era, you pick which one you want. So maybe Ancient Era science you have 2 options for goals - one option is display 10 codices, another option is to slot 10 specialists into your cities, and when you discover Writing, you choose which of the 2 paths you want. That way, you have a potential choice in which direction you want to take your empire.

It would be nice if I could ignore the distant lands maybe every 3rd or 4th game, without basically sacrificing 2 victory paths. Let me choose which games I want to worry about religion in. That alone would probably double up how much you can play a sandbox game without being too forced down a path.

I partly agree, but that sort of diversity should be done with great care. As a peaceful player, in previous Civ games I often was turtling on my homeland, thus reaching end game boredom before the middle of the game. Forcing players to use distant lands is a good thing. And we have civs which could generate either military or economic points on the homelands already. Extending this a bit could be good, but it needs to be done carefully.

Same with other alternative ways to get points. It's very easy to break the goal of those mechanics with alternative ways of getting points, so it should be done very carefully.

 

[0urBall]

Just a quick sidebar on this as I don't have the game; assuming regular settings, does the player always start on the landmass with more AIs than the distant lands? Every game I've seem streamed has fewer civs in the distant lands (2 out of 6 total say, or 3 out of 7/8). Is this something that people think might create a bit of variety in games, and could be something simple to fix?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Just a quick sidebar on this as I don't have the game; assuming regular settings, does the player always start on the landmass with more AIs than the distant lands? Every game I've seem streamed has fewer civs in the distant lands (2 out of 6 total say, or 3 out of 7/8). Is this something that people think might create a bit of variety in games, and could be something simple to fix?

In the current game player always starts in the landmass with more civs, but it doesn't need fixing as it's intentional. Homeland civs are supposed to settle in the distant lands in exploration and thus distant lands need to leave some free space.

Variety of games is probably restricted by this, but it's not felt that way much when you play. There's significant variability in how landmasses are shaped, where exactly civs starts, where some additional features like natural wonders or rivers go, etc.

Also, important thing is that Firaxis is going to make maps more symmetrical with coming patches (as the goal is to allow all-player games in multiplayer), so the game will change significantly with it.

 

[Krikkit1]

In the current game player always starts in the landmass with more civs, but tt doesn't need fixing as it's intentional. Homeland civs are supposed to settle in the distant lands in exploration and thus distant lands need to leave some free space.

Variety of games is probably restricted by this, but it's not felt that way much when you play. There's significant variability in how landmasses are shaped, where exactly civs starts, where some additional features like natural wonders or rivers go, etc.

Also, important thing is that Firaxis is going to make maps more symmetrical with coming patches (as the goal is to allow all-player games in multiplayer), so the game will change significantly with it.

Hopefully the maps don’t become symmetrical as much as the mechanics being symmetrical (ie “Distant Lands” or “Homeland” become relative rather than absolute…but one of the “Lands” is more crowded)

 

[UWHabs]

Hopefully the maps don’t become symmetrical as much as the mechanics being symmetrical (ie “Distant Lands” or “Homeland” become relative rather than absolute…but one of the “Lands” is more crowded)

Yeah, everyone playing the same game is important for balance, but having natural variation between homeland and distant lands will be important.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Hopefully the maps don’t become symmetrical as much as the mechanics being symmetrical (ie “Distant Lands” or “Homeland” become relative rather than absolute…but one of the “Lands” is more crowded)

I think it should be possible to have different number of civs in the different parts of the world, but in this case the size of those parts should reflect this. Players should always have some space to settle on the other part of the world.

 

[Mezmorizor]

I'm not sure why you guys are surprised about Firaxis not crowing about 1m sales. If we assume the steamdb number is accurate, that's a major, studio closing flop for a flagship AAA game. Maybe it's worse or maybe it's better, but internal projections had to be at least double that. Probably more like 3 to 4 times higher.

Now, I don't think 2k will shutter things for obvious reasons, but Deus Ex:Mankind Divided got the series shelved indefinitely off the back of 1.5m sales (which especially hurts because they ran out of money in development and just ended the game 70% of the way through the story), and that's in a more niche genre that has a few cult classics and one commercial success (Deus Ex:Human Revolution).

 

[aelf]

Maybe the series being shelved will generate more satisfaction than any other outcome at this point. Would be a long and tedious journey to get to that point, though,

 

[j51]

Maybe the series being shelved will generate more satisfaction than any other outcome at this point. Would be a long and tedious journey to get to that point, though,

Wow that’s dark. I hope they can turn this around. It’s got a lot of potential.

 

[aelf]

I think so too, but contemporary gaming/media culture clamours for repeating the same formulas while chafing against them. If the negative narrative prevails, I don't see a good future for the series.

 

[Dreadnought]

Yes, this is teetering towards disastrous as a release, but I think the series is just too valuable of a name to be shelved forever.

I do wonder if they need to start having serious considerations about winding down Civ7 development, get a fresh leadership team in the studio, and starting anew with 8.

 

[coolhandluke11]

i really couldnt be bothered with civ 7 as breaking the game into three different era,s was a big mistake. it wont be getting anymore money from me unless it returns to a continuous play through. i can see why the numbers are low. dont even get me started on the map script.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Finally this thread catches doom and gloom vibes from the original one.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think it should be possible to have different number of civs in the different parts of the world, but in this case the size of those parts should reflect this. Players should always have some space to settle on the other part of the world.

I would disagree (at least as a forced rule) having one "Land" with more empty space+IPs but less other civs and another "Land" with more civs but less empty space IPs would be an important distinction... are you getting Distant Land Settlements and Resources through Settlers or through Military Troops and Trade agreements (you already get double military points for a conquered settlement... they just need a way to diplomatically get Treasure Fleets.. and the uncrowded land doesn't need to use any settlers to get their Legacy points, just conquer or trade)

 

[queenpea]

I think so too, but contemporary gaming/media culture clamours for repeating the same formulas while chafing against them. If the negative narrative prevails, I don't see a good future for the series.

I don't think it's just the "negative narrative", which is to blame for a rocky release.

I think we are guaranteed at least one expansion pack. I also think that a free content update paired with a sale sometime this summer (?) could help the game find its footing. On player count, we may soon be approaching somewhat of a floor around 9,000 - 11,000 players.

 

[Binkov]

I get to talk to some game developers from time to time and the consensus between them is that a steam review equates to 30 to 50 copies sold. With the games with a more niche audience skewing towards 30. Also games whose review rating is more extreme, those two skew more towards 1 to 30 ratio.
Given all that, I would guess that civ7, with its 30 thousand reviews, has indeed crossed 1 million, though it may be under 1.2 million. That's steam sales only, of course. Not counting other sale venues like consoles.
Assuming 80 dollars per game, and roughly two thirds of that sum going to developers (after steam cut, refunds, sales tax) firaxis likely got over 50 million USD so far just from steam sales.
I've no idea how big is firaxis now but 10 years ago it hit 180 people. If average gross salary is 120 K USD and if the entire team of, say, 180 worked on the game for 4 years, (probably more with a tiny core team) that's 86 million spent on salaries alone.
Of course it could be duration of development, average employee count and average salary are different.
But it's still possible that firaxis hasn't really covered the expenses as of yet.