Player stats, sales, and reception discussion

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Sorry but this is nonsense + irrelevant examples. I don't think I need to explain why. Because I don't think anyone else have problem differentiating between "forced", "artificial" and "dislike". And these were clearly linked (explained) labels - they were linked here in the dissucssion, possibly you skipped those parts.

I've been following this discussion a bit, and for what it's worth, those terms aren't nearly as clear or objective as you seem to think they are. It's a normal human thing, you think the terms are obvious because they're obvious to you. All I can say is, they're not obvious, not the way some people on here are using them. So its probably better to use more fulsome explanations, rather than assuming that short-hand terms will mean the same to your readers as they do to you.

 

[Leucarum]

I'll also add that eras are less black and white than many previous changes. How much gets carried over, and how suddenly they trigger are very much something firaxis can vary - or even better have optional settings for. Particularly since how jarring they are seems to be subjective. Even without getting rid of eras the abruptness of transitions can be modulated.

 

[bitula]

I don't think at any point I've called your opinion nonsense or irrelevant. I would appreciate it if you did the same.

Why were Districts not forced? You don't get a choice, you have to use them. I can't see you winning any game without using at least one in a city. The same goes for the change from MUPT to 1UPT. You had to like it or leave it. The same presumably goes for the Age system, radical overhauls to the game that have no measurable guarantee of success notwithstanding. If they stuck the course with 1UPT, given how rough V was on release, it makes me think they might do the same here.

Then again, the games industry (and consumers likewise) are in a different place now compared to back in the late 00s. Hard to tell.

Ok, sure, but your previous comment compared to this one didn't make any sense (to me "subjectively").
So
Why were 1UPT not forced?
Because there are units in the game and they can be either stacked or 1UPT. You need to chose, not having military units is not an option.

 

[uppi]

I have no insider information, so these are just my guesses:

• Planning for Civ 8 was underway even before Civ 7 was released.
• The reception of Civ 7 will shorten the Civ 7 development cycle, unless sales numbers are better than reviews and player counts suggest (possible) and/or DLCs released over the next year or two are favourably received (even more possible).
• Civ 8 will be developed under a new leadership team (this was likely regardless of the commercial success of Civ 7, and pretty much certain now).
• Even if Civ 7's cycle is shortened, it will be a minimum of 6 years until Civ 8 is released (2031 at the earliest). Six years is the gap between Civ 5 and Civ 6, and that was with leadership team continuity. Game development times have been increasing across the industry. The leadership for Civ 8 will want to take the time to understand the lessons of Civ 7. They're also likely to build a new engine from scratch (Civ 5, 6 and 7 run on a core that is now getting long in the tooth). That will take time.
• There will be no quick pivot, but there may be a diversion of resources from longer-cycle Civ 7 DLCs to core Civ 8. That could happen as soon as this year, but may not happen until the first-cycle DLC reception is confirmed (i.e. no decision until next year).
• If Civ 7 sales numbers are really bad, there may be an interim project between now and Civ 8, such as a re-skin of an earlier version of Civ, something to replace future Civ 7 DLCs and generate current revenues while Civ 8 progresses. Different parts of the development team are busy at different times in the development cycle, so efficient use of resources mean enough projects in parallel to keep all of them gainfully employed at all times.

Bottom-line: with a commercially successful Civ 7, the development cycle would likely have seen Civ 8 brought to market in about 10 years (approx. 2035). If Civ 8 is accelerated, it's still likely to be at least 6 years before it would come to market. In the meantime, we'll continue to see Civ 7 DLCs unless they really flop, in which case we may see a modest interim project between now and Civ 8.

I very much doubt that there were plans for Civ 8 before the release of Civ 7. Work on Civ 7 started around 2019, 3 years after the Civ 6 release. And it does not make much sense to plan that far ahead into the future.

And you are assuming that there will be a Civ 8 anytime soon. If Civ 7 is not at least a moderate success, the publisher might be reluctant to fund a successor. Provided, someone has an idea what Civ 8 should be in the first place.

 

[bitula]

I've been following this discussion a bit, and for what it's worth, those terms aren't nearly as clear or objective as you seem to think they are. It's a normal human thing, you think the terms are obvious because they're obvious to you. All I can say is, they're not obvious, not the way some people on here are using them. So its probably better to use more fulsome explanations, rather than assuming that short-hand terms will mean the same to your readers as they do to you.

But its not possible to copy-paste each time parts of converstaion to get the full picture. If one is not following the discussion, he should just skip it. But if the problem is simply that these words somehow radiate negativity then sure, I'm all for it: lets find better words. We could replace forced with "scripted", "hardcoded", "prefabricated". And artificial with for example "gamely" or "unnatural". But again, I think this is not an issue for those following the conversation, only when reading without a context.

 

[itix]

I could be wrong, but I suspect they do, if they want Civ 8 to be something other than "Civ Greatest Hits". I think one of the things Civ 7 is demonstrating is the limit of the current engine and how difficult it is to do new things with it. How cities interact with the map, how units interact with the map, etc. are to at least some degree limited by decisions made while Civ 5 was being developed. At some point, I think they're going to say "let's stop being limited by what was possible in 2008 and think about what is possible in 202X".

If Civ 7 is on the limits of the current engine, then there is good reason to start working on Civ 8 now.

Maybe the dev team for Civ 8 will consider the existing engine just fine for what they want to do or be able to tweak it instead of outright replacing it. That could shorten the development cycle. At some point, though, renovating becomes more complex than building from scratch. My gut tells me the Civ series is at that point, but my gut is not part of any dev team discussions.

Not necessarily. If the current engine is well-designed and maintained, it could be easy to expand and renovate it, minimizing tech debt. That is not often the case but a studio like Firaxis should have enough resources to maintain its assets.

re the other assets, if you mean art assets, no way Civ 8 uses any art assets from Civ 7. That's not done by major publishers. They'd be lampooned mercilessly.

Does anybody care? Call it Civ VII-2, following the footsteps of Final Fantasy X, where devs created a successful sequel reusing existing art assets. It did receive criticism, but it was a financial success.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I very much doubt that there were plans for Civ 8 before the release of Civ 7. Work on Civ 7 started around 2019, 3 years after the Civ 6 release. And it does not make much sense to plan that far ahead into the future.

And you are assuming that there will be a Civ 8 anytime soon. If Civ 7 is not at least a moderate success, the publisher might be reluctant to fund a successor. Provided, someone has an idea what Civ 8 should be in the first place.

The planning I was thinking of for Civ 8 is quite general. The process of developing Civ 7 would have included idea generation, some of which likely got tabled for "let's set that aside and think about it for Civ 8". I agree that no formal development work would have started, but directionally I would be surprised if the dev team's work on Civ 7 did not set in motion things they would want to incorporate in the future. I'd also be surprised if their development cycle does not include at least indicative dates for when future Civ 7 DLCs will be released and when work on Civ 8 would begin. All subject to change, yes, but such long-term plans provide context for near-term development. I agree that its too early for them to have made concrete plans for Civ 8, which is part of why I suspect that even if they pivot to that early, the development cycle will take a long time.

Two Civ games (5 and 6) both continue to appear among the top 100 games on Steam by current player count. A franchise with that longevity and stickiness is unlikely to be abandoned after one false step (assuming Civ 7 ultimately proves to be a false step). I suspect a leadership change to be more likely than mothballing the franchise.

 

[Sagax]

re the other assets, if you mean art assets, no way Civ 8 uses any art assets from Civ 7. That's not done by major publishers. They'd be lampooned mercilessly.

For what it’s worth, Civ 7’s Great Works do reuse art assets from Civ 6, with some new ones added to the mix.

 

[Gorbles]

Ok, sure, but your previous comment compared to this one didn't make any sense (to me "subjectively").
So
Why were 1UPT not forced?
Because there are units in the game and they can be either stacked or 1UPT. You need to chose, not having military units is not an option.

It's not an option as enforced by the design of the game (especially in V). Exactly the same as Age transitions. The game gives you no choice.

There are numerous other examples. That's why it's far more useful imo to discuss the underlying reasons why, instead of calling it obvious, and other peoples' posts nonsense, when they see links (correctly or incorrectly) between mechanics that you don't.

 

[bitula]

It's not an option as enforced by the design of the game (especially in V). Exactly the same as Age transitions. The game gives you no choice.

There are numerous other examples. That's why it's far more useful imo to discuss the underlying reasons why, instead of calling it obvious, and other peoples' posts nonsense when they see links (correctly or incorrectly) between mechanics that you don't.

I don't understand what you want to say. Yes, having military units is part of the design of any civ game. Age transition is not.

 

[Dreadnought]

Short of drastically redesigning core mechanics of Civ7, I don’t see what major expansions can do to draw in more of a player base.

I think it makes sense to continue to develop smaller civ packages, which should be cheaper to make, to generate revenue among the existing player base, and focus all efforts on Civ8.

I do think though that a remastered Civ4 could be a big revenue source in between the releases of 7 and 8.

 

[protocol7]

It seems like they could still sell more civ6 expansions too. Maybe even civ5.

 

[Leucarum]

Subjective argument incoming: I think a lot depends on what you count as "core."

Civ7 has seen many complaints but I'd argue that core system changes (Thinking of things like removing workers, commanders, the resource system, diplomacy, town/city split) have mostly been pretty very well recieved.

Ages appear to have been designed each as a separate "mod." So while they were central to Civ7's pitch... I think you could make an argument that ages and it's ancillary baggage (legacy paths, civ switching) aren't really core... They have been designed to be added on top of existing systems. Just look at the rumours of a 4th age hinted at in the files for evidence of malleability. And thus ages seem quite amenable to beimg changed while keeping the more fundamental good stuff intact.

I think something new is needed, but I'd rather firaxis didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There'a a LOT which is great in Civ7.

 

[protocol7]

As best I can tell each age is a scenario, maybe they could give us an “ageless” scenario.

 

[Leucarum]

As best I can tell each age is a scenario, maybe they could give us an “ageless” scenario.

I'd be amazed if Firaxis aren't actively considering that. Unless they really throttle the modding tools I expect we'll see an ageless mod even if they don't release one themselves.

 

[Kev1916]

Though I think at this point you've answered the question. No, you don't consider the Marian Reforms the same, because technically they eventually let you maybe opt out of it. Though notably, if you play a Roman faction, it's pretty hard (if not impossible) to not get to that point (especially as any other Roman faction can also trigger the Reforms).

Thanks we got there in the end technically or not them is the facts of Rome TW, and I thought the idea of completing the campaign as the Romans before unlocking the rest was awesome

In previous Civ games you pick your nation from turn 1 to completion of the game .

This time you cant, your "forced " to or another word Select a new civilization from the new Age .

 

[AD1730]

Subjective argument incoming: I think a lot depends on what you count as "core."

Civ7 has seen many complaints but I'd argue that core system changes (Thinking of things like removing workers, commanders, the resource system, diplomacy, town/city split) have mostly been pretty very well recieved.

Ages appear to have been designed each as a separate "mod." So while they were central to Civ7's pitch... I think you could make an argument that ages and it's ancillary baggage (legacy paths, civ switching) aren't really core... They have been designed to be added on top of existing systems. Just look at the rumours of a 4th age hinted at in the files for evidence of malleability. And thus ages seem quite amenable to beimg changed while keeping the more fundamental good stuff intact.

I think something new is needed, but I'd rather firaxis didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There'a a LOT which is great in Civ7.

Ages and civ switching are literally the things they led with when they revealed the game, I remember it well because I had an extremely negative reaction to it. It's extremely difficult to argue that those aren't core systems to the game.

 

[Kev1916]

Ages and civ switching are literally the things they led with when they revealed the game, I remember it well because I had an extremely negative reaction to it. It's extremely difficult to argue that those aren't core systems to the game.

From the man himself "Ages represent a significant gameplay evolution for Civilization - one as big as when we moved from squares to hexes. " sounds a pretty core change

 

[Leucarum]

Ages and civ switching are literally the things they led with when they revealed the game, I remember it well because I had an extremely negative reaction to it. It's extremely difficult to argue that those aren't core systems to the game.

I did say (and I agree) that they were core to their advertising... Quite likely even to their initial vision... but much like all fast food is advertised as great tasting, I have my doubts that they are actually core to the final product - mostly as they appear to have been coded as mods or scenarios and hence seem very much malleable...

I did state that my opinions here are subjective though so feel free to disagree.

 

[trev1972]

Short of drastically redesigning core mechanics of Civ7, I don’t see what major expansions can do to draw in more of a player base.

I think it makes sense to continue to develop smaller civ packages, which should be cheaper to make, to generate revenue among the existing player base, and focus all efforts on Civ8.

I do think though that a remastered Civ4 could be a big revenue source in between the releases of 7 and 8.

Based on the number of reviews, i dont think the DLC sold particularly well?
I would buy a remastered civ 4 in a heartbeat, but it was released in 2005- i am not sure how much demand there would be.