Player stats, sales, and reception discussion

[tman2000]

Depending on what you meant by ahead of the curve, Civ7 isn't doing comparatively well against other installments, at least with Steam numbers. The initial player count was absolutely dwarfed by Civ6, and both Civ5 and Civ6 held onto players better. Civ7 most closely aligns with the performance of Beyond Earth in terms of the launch peak and floor it found after a couple months. These are the stats aligned to release dates:

View attachment 731029

Put Humankind on there.

 

[tman2000]

After playing Civ6 for as many hrs as i did, it became stale for me, so when i heard of a new approach to the game design i was very excited to see what it had to offer, so i pre purchased the founders edition. When i first started playing i loved the new mechanics and graphics, and didn't take heed to the negative reviews, but after playing for 150 hrs the bugs really started to get to me and i quit playing for a while and was kicking myself for pre purchasing it rather than waiting, but I've been the only active admin on a FB group For Civ with almost 50k members for several years and it's something i enjoy, so even during the time i wasn't playing i didn't lose interest in the series.
The patches have helped get me back into playing again and i enjoy playing but i feel i'm unlikely to feel the same way about 7, that i did with 6 once all the DLC and patches are released, but who knows, maybe they can make some major changes over the coming year or so.
My biggest complaint is the eras and the fact that they are over too quickly. I don't believe a spin off would be the right move to bring in the extra revenue as i can't see people jumping in to buy it after purchasing 7 and being so disapointed, i feel like they need to make some major changes to the eras if they are to gain some of the dedicated fanbase that have chosen to stick with Civ6 or 5.

It was like Starfield with me. I liked the idea of some of these features, and as I played the first 50 hours I kept feeling like I was getting toward the experience I had been expecting so it felt fun, but when I realized that experience would never come I lost interest.

For instance, I'm one of those who spent two modern ages not knowing you could slot multiple factory resources and stack their effect. I started off on lower difficulties so it didn't matter and I kept thinking how cool the idea of factories and railroads would be and how once I understood how they worked and planned for them it would be soooo fun. There were also huge city connection bugs and also things like you have to build a station in your capital to even have a rail network. Stuff that is not actually explained anywhere, or if it is, once and nowhere else. It was early after release so I assumed major bugs would be patched post-haste and/or I would understand systems better and there'd by a massively fun toy to unwrap when I reached the level of focusing on it.

Then I found out there was nothing inside the wrapper. The bugs and my awareness of them escalated. UI issues, some plain annoying and others unforgiveable. Then barely an bug fixes.

I think the HMS Revenge not being a unique model turned the tide in my brain in contextualizing it all. Oh well.

Here's a little of what "my imagination" expected Civ 7 was going to turn out to be:

1. Weird cool bonus religious beliefs that made the tedious spread system better, once I figured out how to unlock them.
2. A cool railroad system of delivering goods to factories to boost growth in newly modern towns.
3. Actual layers of history where some of the old buildings become ruins, and there's texture and color variation where you can clearly see which parts of a city look ancient or new.
4. Some sort of interesting synergizing effect in districts which result from pairing specific building types (not adjacency, but synergy).
5. Civ transitions that were more logical, where it felt like the transition was history progressing (rather than just okay it's round two, new civ). A teleology, a narrative meaning in the transitions that mitigated the sense of lost identity (I sort of felt this once or twice, for instance when my Greece expanded in late antiquity to the coast, and then I became Hawaii and my island chain cities became my most productive, as if the national elite all moved over to the coastal region and adopted the culture of the island people who were settling there in large numbers, but this was all headcanon and I've had transitions that were jarring as well).
6. Ironically given the criticism, more impactful crisis and more primary legacy goals (like, to open up the exploration map, you complete a quest). I kind of envisioned it would be a scale of play tailored for one age and then a set of quest completion would re-scale the game, like set of sandboxes connected by linear narratives with compelling history tied to them.
7. Not sure what I was expecting, but something a lot "more" from modern.

Etc.

 

[Ornen]

Could you please be more specific? If it's in a video, do you have a timestamp? I skimmed through the "Looking to the future" part of the gameplay showcase, and saw nothing about predicted DLC packs-per-year for the next decade.

I am telling you that Civ 7 the game, with the price points and planned DLC as stated in that announcement, is the outcome of a business conversation predicated on the balance between budget and expected revenue.

 

[Gorbles]

I am telling you that Civ 7 the game, with the price points and planned DLC as stated in that announcement, is the outcome of a business conversation.

I mean, everything at a high enough level created by a business is. I was querying the assertion that there would be a decade of multiple DLC packs per year, with a $30 cost attached. Is this something the developers / Firaxis / 2K themselves have actually committed to? If so, where?

The only two I thought we knew of were the two this year. One of which one of the lowest review scores I've seen, and the other which has been pushed back (explicitly, by the developers) so they can take the time to get it and the product itself right.

 

[Ornen]

I mean, everything at a high enough level created by a business is. I was querying the assertion that there would be a decade of multiple DLC packs per year, with a $30 cost attached. Is this something the developers / Firaxis / 2K themselves have actually committed to? If so, where?

if they can drop two civ packs a year for $30 apiece, they will. and if that is the plan, it's foundational to the budget and plan for the game.

you can look at 2k's lineup for yourself, but if Civ 7 weren't predicated on a continuing DLC model (or annual release model, eg NBA 2K) it would be one of the few exceptions on that roster. the idea that Civ 7 would continue on this business model is a very straightforward extrapolation of the announced DLC model, which fits into the kind of business model 2K likes to use to make its games profitable.

10 years was the lifespan of Civ 6. they continued to develop the Civ 6 DLC model up until the end of its lifespan, and they have elaborated on it in Civ 7. (more eras, more civs, more DLC packs, more money)

The only two I thought we knew of were the two this year. One of which one of the lowest review scores I've seen, and the other which has been pushed back (explicitly, by the developers) so they can take the time to get it and the product itself right.

well yeah, that's a key point I'm talking about. I think the above model just took a hard fall on its face, which is the fundamental issue at stake for C7's future. if Civ 7 can't make $200-$1,000 on most of its users over 10 years, it may not be able to make back its budget, which puts Firaxis in a very hard place, especially since it would be their third game in a row to do so.

 

[VGT]

Adding another statistics snapshot to the mix so we could extrapolate it in every possible direction.

Is this first occurrence where game stayed below 10k in its 24 hours peak, or I missed another one earlier? Data from earlier are more averaged and I might not have checked it every day.

 

[Gorbles]

if they can drop two civ packs a year for $30 apiece, they will. and if that is the plan, it's foundational to the budget and plan for the game.

That's two ifs in a row, the first of which has almost been derailed by the launch of the game in the state it was. A ten year plan is a risky plan, and one that doesn't survive the shipping date in most operational contexts.

But you do seem to be conceding they they haven't actually said this at all. It's dangerous, because some folks seem to be taking you at your word?

10 years was the lifespan of Civ 6. they continued to develop the Civ 6 DLC model up until the end of its lifespan, and they have elaborated on it in Civ 7. (more eras, more civs, more DLC packs, more money)

8 years was the effective lifespan of Civ VI. And the Leader Pass ended in early 2023, which makes it closer to 7 years.

Speculation is all good and well, but you seem to be rather confidently stating something that makes it look like Civ VII has to extract a ton of money from its fans. Maybe you sincerely believe this! But there's no actual evidence to support it, and I hope even if this was at any point considered by 2K or Firaxis, they no longer hold to that idea.

If Firaxis has ten years to even attempt to make their budget back on VII, then the future is anyone's guess. Games development usually lives or dies on much shorter timelines. Ten years ago, Civ VI hadn't even been released.

 

[misesfan]

Speculation is all good and well, but you seem to be rather confidently stating something that makes it look like Civ VII has to extract a ton of money from its fans. Maybe you sincerely believe this! But there's no actual evidence to support it, and I hope even if this was at any point considered by 2K or Firaxis, they no longer hold to that idea.

I think that Take 2/Firaxis wants to monetize the hell out of this game. They exist to maximize profit after all. The problem that they have is that they have very short term thinking. Push a game out, broken or no, to generate as much quarterly revenue as possible. If its broken, then fix it in the next quarter and start pumping DLC out. Their short term thinking generated revenue, but their low-quality effort reduces incentive for a player to buy full-priced DLC and expansions. You would think those who made Civ understand opportunity costs. I can't even with these guys....

 

[Ornen]

But there's no actual evidence to support it,

that is the business model as announced, did you really think they were going to stop selling DLC next year?

But you do seem to be conceding they they haven't actually said this at all. It's dangerous, because some folks seem to be taking you at your word?

this is a discussion forum. "dangerous"? give me a break. I'm telling you to look at the announced DLC and at every other game in 2K's stable, 9/10 of which follow either an annual release or continuing DLC business model. did they plan to continue releasing DLC for Civ 7 at this price point? gee, I don't know

I don't believe they ever thought they would make $800-$1000 over all civ players, or even the average civ player. probably they're aiming for $200-$500 per user in the first 5 years of the game's lifespan, with opportunity to continue making money further on. but if sales stall out on the first DLC packs after launch, that is absolutely cutting against the budget on this game, and it is going to be a serious problem for Firaxis if they do not make back ther budget three games in a row.

(it was already a problem when it happened 2 games in a row, which is when they elevated Heather Hazen to head of Firaxis)

 

[Gorbles]

that is the business model as announced, did you really think they were going to stop selling DLC next year?

No. Nor do I think keeping selling DLC next year means that your prediction of a decade of DLC is therefore remotely accurate either.

this is a discussion forum. "dangerous"? give me a break. I'm telling you to look at the announced DLC and at every other game in 2K's stable, 9/10 of which follow either an annual release or continuing DLC business model. did they plan to continue releasing DLC for Civ 7 at this price point? gee, I don't know

And I believe you're wrong. On top of that, I think these predictions would be setting the game up for failure.

Nor are your claims backed up by even the Leader Pass when it comes to size, scope and upfront cost (for a lack of guaranteed consumer return at the time). Nor are they supported by how XCOM or Midnight Suns were handled.

But hey, let's see. It's impossible to make a discussion out something unfalsifiable anyway. I mistakenly assumed you were going on something concrete, instead of completely making up something that seems bad for consumers and wording it as though it was a conscious decision made by Firaxis.

 

[firadin]

Nor are your claims backed up by even the Leader Pass when it comes to size, scope and upfront cost (for a lack of guaranteed consumer return at the time). Nor are they supported by how XCOM or Midnight Suns were handled.

Xcom 2 came out ages ago, before the massive success of the Civ6 DLC model (honestly it's planning might have happened before the success of Civ5's DLC). Midnight Suns was pretty clearly designed with a similar DLC model in mind, giving Firaxis the ability to sell individual heroes as separate DLCs. That's actually what they did, selling 3 heroes each as separate DLC before killing future support because the game was a commercial flop (despite how much i enjoyed it!)

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Adding another statistics snapshot to the mix so we could extrapolate it in every possible direction.

Is this first occurrence where game stayed below 10k in its 24 hours peak, or I missed another one earlier? Data from earlier are more averaged and I might not have checked it every day.


View attachment 731087

I think you are right, I have seen it dip below 10k players as a peak before.

We're also currently at the lowest number of concurrent players on steam absolutely as well - sitting just about 5k right now.

I wonder how much lower it can get

 

[Gorbles]

Xcom 2 came out ages ago, before the massive success of the Civ6 DLC model (honestly it's planning might have happened before the success of Civ5's DLC). Midnight Suns was pretty clearly designed with a similar DLC model in mind, giving Firaxis the ability to sell individual heroes as separate DLCs. That's actually what they did, selling 3 heroes each as separate DLC before killing future support because the game was a commercial flop (despite how much i enjoyed it!)

Yes, games getting DLC was not something I was arguing. Locking in a nonsensical ten-year plan and backing it up with false statements like "Civ VI had a 10 year lifespan" at the expense of theoretical future consumers is what I'm objecting to.

(this is aside from the ongoing cost of supporting a game for 10 years)

 

[protocol7]

The games surrounding Civ7 on the "currently playing" Steam charts just keep getting funnier, if you have that sense of humor (I grew up on MST3k and definitely do). Highlights at the moment beating civ7 include eFootball, a 47% rated football game from 2021, Bloons 6, a 96% rated tower defense game that came out in 2018, and Brawlhalla, an 80% rated JRPG from 2017. Don't call it a flop, though.

 

[Siptah]

I’d argue that Bloons TD is much more popular than that. It should easily beat civ VI, maybe all civ games combined. It‘s mostly a mobile game and I didn‘t even know a Steam version existed. It has been in the top 10 games of the App Store for years.

 

[protocol7]

Could be popular on mobile for sure, but this is just comparing to the Steam version.

 

[protocol7]

Put Humankind on there.

Here you go, proof things could always be worse

 

[Ornen]

Yes, games getting DLC was not something I was arguing. Locking in a nonsensical ten-year plan and backing it up with false statements like "Civ VI had a 10 year lifespan" at the expense of theoretical future consumers is what I'm objecting to.

(this is aside from the ongoing cost of supporting a game for 10 years)

ok, so you're quibbling over small details (8 or 10 years? who cares) vs arguing with my actual argument: that if Civ 7 can't sell $30 DLC to a large enough audience, Firaxis is in trouble financially

 

[Gorbles]

ok, so you're quibbling over small details (8 or 10 years? who cares) vs arguing with my actual argument: that if Civ 7 can't sell $30 DLC to a large enough audience, Firaxis is in trouble financially

I thought your actual argument was establishing a decade-long business plan that customers needed to be on the hook for (which didn't seem to be a small detail). My bad.

Of course the sales for any upcoming DLC are important. But so far we only know of two. A lot of folks are expecting a big update or expansion that will shift the needle. I'm not sure individual DLC will do - regardless of whether they sell well or not.

 

[Core Imposter]

Comparing Civ7 with Humankind there is deceptive. Development and marketing costs were very different.