Player stats, sales, and reception discussion

[Kyriakos]

Only loosely related but:

civ in at least the past two entries leaned much more into widening its audience and got less „hardcore“ with a lot of success. Paradox did similar with CK3 and Victoria 3 - not dumbed down, but in a way much easier to play games compared their predecessor. EU5 seems to be the opposite: more hardcore, more details, more mechanics, slower gameplay. I‘m curious how this will go re: long term player numbers.

VictoriaIII has "a lot of success"? I haven't been following it lately, but up to some months ago it was a trashcan-fire.
Eu5 engine changes do look really nice.

 

[queenpea]

VictoriaIII has "a lot of success"? I haven't been following it lately, but up to some months ago it was a trashcan-fire.
Eu5 engine changes do look really nice.

It received a lot of flack on release for being undercooked, similar to Civ VII. It's been out for a couple of years now and has improved a great deal. The player counts right now on Steam are similar to Civ VII, and the game is better reviewed than Civ VII. I wouldn't call it a huge success, but I wouldn't call it a dumpster fire either.

 

[AD1730]

VictoriaIII has "a lot of success"? I haven't been following it lately, but up to some months ago it was a trashcan-fire.
Eu5 engine changes do look really nice.

That game goes between being somewhat stable to being broken very easily, it seems. I think they're heading in the right direction, but it's taken far too long.

At release, Victoria 3 was far too simplified to satisfy its audience. I think it's probably a good example of what not to do when it comes to making a game "easier to play". From a UI standpoint, Victoria 3 was an absolute mess at release too.

 

[Nares]

"We're confident that the development team's ongoing efforts to update key areas of the game will deliver outstanding results over the franchise's typically long sales cycle."
= "The dev team is working on fixing things which may improve sales. If they succeed, we'll be selling Civ DLCs for a long time." No surprise they want a long sales cycle for Civ 7. Positive for Civ 7 lovers that they still hope to have one. Negative that delivering outstanding results is dependent on updating key areas of the game, but again probably not a surprise for people on this forum.

I see the phrase "over the franchise's typically long sales cycle," and I hear, "we're no longer expecting Civ7 to have as long a sales cycle." They may be looking to soften the blow of an early announcement regarding Civ8's development.

 

[AD1730]

I see the phrase "over the franchise's typically long sales cycle," and I hear, "we're no longer expecting Civ7 to have as long a sales cycle." They may be looking to soften the blow of an early announcement regarding Civ8's development.

I don't see it that way. It is corporatese for, "This game hasn't sold well, yet. But previous games in the franchise have sold well over time. We expect this one to as well." Do they actually believe that? I'm not sure. I know I don't believe it.

 

[Chiyo]

To me it sounds like sales so far have been disappointing but they have not given up on it, yet, but hope to turn things around. So we can expect further updates and DLC by the current team. If figures do not improve the life cycle could be shortened, though. Or maybe they will give it another shot by making changes in the development team.

 

[Gorbles]

Well, yes. Civ-series has sold less than Mario Kart 8.
But 70 million isn't too niche still? Its a lot of sold games in my head.
And Borderlands are on every single platform and quite cheap, when Civ is mostly on PC and really expensive. Would be nice to know the difference in dollars.

As Solver said, in the 4x space, Civ is big.

But compared to the franchises it's being compared to, it's small, was more of my point.

Borderlands 3 was also very much not cheap on release. It was one of the earlier £50 / $60 games in my region back in 2019.

-------------------

I'd normally post this as a news thread, but this is pretty relevant to the earnings call, so here it goes:

Take-Two Boss Strauss Zelnick Says He's 'Thrilled' With Civilization 7 So Far Even Through More People Are Playing Civ 6 and Even Civ 5 on Steam - IGN

Civilization 7 has had a rough launch on Steam, with fewer players than Civilization 6 and even the 15-year-old Civilization 5. But the boss of Take-Two has said he's "thrilled" with the game so far.

www.ign.com

You’d think, then, that Firaxis parent company Take-Two wouldn’t be best pleased. But speaking to IGN in an interview ahead of the company’s latest financial results, CEO Strauss Zelnick told me he was “thrilled” with Civ 7 so far.

“I'm thrilled with Civ 7 so far,” Zelnick began. “However, there were some issues initially, and our team at Firaxis has done a great job addressing those issues. There's more work to be done. I'm optimistic that work will be done and will suit consumers, and ultimately that we have a very successful title on our hands.”

Zelnick then pointed to the Civilization franchise’s tendency to have a long sales cycle, at least compared to many other games, and his belief that Civ 7 will follow suit.

“The history of all the Civilization releases is that initially some of the changes that we make cause consternation among our consumers because they love the Civilization franchise so much,” he said.

“And then people realize, oh, this really is an improvement and over a long sales cycle, we do really well. I think that's what'll happen here too.

“But undoubtedly, we had some issues in the beginning, which we've addressed partially and continue to address.”

Looks like they're confident it will have a long tail.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

As Solver said, in the 4x space, Civ is big.

But compared to the franchises it's being compared to, it's small, was more of my point.

Borderlands 3 was also very much not cheap on release. It was one of the earlier £50 / $60 games in my region back in 2019.

-------------------

I'd normally post this as a news thread, but this is pretty relevant to the earnings call, so here it goes:

Take-Two Boss Strauss Zelnick Says He's 'Thrilled' With Civilization 7 So Far Even Through More People Are Playing Civ 6 and Even Civ 5 on Steam - IGN

Civilization 7 has had a rough launch on Steam, with fewer players than Civilization 6 and even the 15-year-old Civilization 5. But the boss of Take-Two has said he's "thrilled" with the game so far.

www.ign.com

Looks like they're confident it will have a long tail.

Quoting from this article, which you should read all of (its short), because I don't want people to miss it:

“The history of all the Civilization releases is that initially some of the changes that we make cause consternation among our consumers because they love the Civilization franchise so much,” he [Zelnick] said.

“And then people realize, oh, this really is an improvement and over a long sales cycle, we do really well."

 

[Siptah]

VictoriaIII has "a lot of success"? I haven't been following it lately, but up to some months ago it was a trashcan-fire.
Eu5 engine changes do look really nice.

Sorry, I probably formulated that wrongly. What I meant is, with the newer generation of GSGs (HoI4, CK3, Vic3, Stellaris, and EU4), PDX arrived at strategy mainstream for sure, and these games are all more streamlined and easier to play than their predecessors (I haven't actually played any HoI though nor Stellaris though). Yet, the newer games had mass market appeal in my eyes (compared to Vic 2 and EU3, while CK2 was already there). EU5 deviates from that in my view. Not that I think this is bad, not at all. But I think in contrast to CK and Victoria, the newer title will be more difficult to get into and play well than the old one.

And yes, I know that Victoria 3 isn't as successful as people hoped. And I know that CK2 has much more owners than CK3 (but CK2 base game has been free to pick up on Steam at several points). Still, I stand by my point that like civ, PDX went "hardcore" -> "wider audience," and EU5 challenges this. As much as I like the changes, I expect that EU5 will have to deal with a whole lot of criticism at release.

 

[AD1730]

Quoting from this article, which you should read all of (its short), because I don't want people to miss it:

“The history of all the Civilization releases is that initially some of the changes that we make cause consternation among our consumers because they love the Civilization franchise so much,” he [Zelnick] said.

“And then people realize, oh, this really is an improvement and over a long sales cycle, we do really well."

Yeah, I just think this one's different. The reception is different and the changes are far more alienating. The changes people want are to core game mechanics, which are unlikely to change that much at this point. I think Zelnick will be proven wrong in the long run.

I believe the legacy of Civ 7 will be either "the weird one" (at best) or "the bad one" (at worst).

 

[Siptah]

Quoting from this article, which you should read all of (its short), because I don't want people to miss it:

“The history of all the Civilization releases is that initially some of the changes that we make cause consternation among our consumers because they love the Civilization franchise so much,” he [Zelnick] said.

“And then people realize, oh, this really is an improvement and over a long sales cycle, we do really well."

So, after reading that article, what he's really saying is: don't get any hopes for civ 8 until 2035.

 

[Core Imposter]

We don't have no direct source on anything, the whole this thread is a wild speculation, based on indirect data.

I think we have sufficient data to construct a framework for making inferences. It is certainly possible that those inferences could be off. But aren't we working with more data than archaeologists often have when proclaiming epochs of history?

 

[queenpea]

So, after reading that article, what he's really saying is: don't get any hopes for civ 8 until 2035.

It took us two years after the launch of Civ VI to receive a proper, full expansion. Do you think we are looking at the same timeline now?

 

[Leucarum]

Sorry, I probably formulated that wrongly. What I meant is, with the newer generation of GSGs (HoI4, CK3, Vic3, Stellaris, and EU4), PDX arrived at strategy mainstream for sure, and these games are all more streamlined and easier to play than their predecessors (I haven't actually played any HoI though nor Stellaris though). Yet, the newer games had mass market appeal in my eyes (compared to Vic 2 and EU3, while CK2 was already there). EU5 deviates from that in my view. Not that I think this is bad, not at all. But I think in contrast to CK and Victoria, the newer title will be more difficult to get into and play well than the old one.

And yes, I know that Victoria 3 isn't as successful as people hoped. And I know that CK2 has much more owners than CK3 (but CK2 base game has been free to pick up on Steam at several points). Still, I stand by my point that like civ, PDX went "hardcore" -> "wider audience," and EU5 challenges this. As much as I like the changes, I expect that EU5 will have to deal with a whole lot of criticism at release.

The previewers seem to say EU5 has no shied away from complexity. As a series it's probably been Paradox's most accessible title (at least until systems bloat takes over from endless DLCs) and 5 to me looks like a significant increase over 4 TBH. But the previewers are also saying that while things are complex they are also very intuitive - everything does exactly what you expect - so maybe it all comes out accessible in the end...

 

[Core Imposter]

As Solver said, in the 4x space, Civ is big.

But compared to the franchises it's being compared to, it's small, was more of my point.

Borderlands 3 was also very much not cheap on release. It was one of the earlier £50 / $60 games in my region back in 2019.

-------------------

I'd normally post this as a news thread, but this is pretty relevant to the earnings call, so here it goes:

Take-Two Boss Strauss Zelnick Says He's 'Thrilled' With Civilization 7 So Far Even Through More People Are Playing Civ 6 and Even Civ 5 on Steam - IGN

Civilization 7 has had a rough launch on Steam, with fewer players than Civilization 6 and even the 15-year-old Civilization 5. But the boss of Take-Two has said he's "thrilled" with the game so far.

www.ign.com

Looks like they're confident it will have a long tail.

This sounds a lot like what the front office says right before they fire the coach.

Important information though. Confirms that they have invested too much to do anything but ride it out. I am not sure that a decision has been made as to what exactly how they hope to turn it around. I am confident that the story of this game will have a long tale.

 

[Calcifer]

Oh boy I'm seeing a lot of wild takes about the hidden meanings of every single statement in this earnings call. That's what civ fanatics do I guess.

As Solver said, in the 4x space, Civ is big.

But compared to the franchises it's being compared to, it's small, was more of my point.

Borderlands 3 was also very much not cheap on release. It was one of the earlier £50 / $60 games in my region back in 2019.

-------------------

I'd normally post this as a news thread, but this is pretty relevant to the earnings call, so here it goes:

Take-Two Boss Strauss Zelnick Says He's 'Thrilled' With Civilization 7 So Far Even Through More People Are Playing Civ 6 and Even Civ 5 on Steam - IGN

Civilization 7 has had a rough launch on Steam, with fewer players than Civilization 6 and even the 15-year-old Civilization 5. But the boss of Take-Two has said he's "thrilled" with the game so far.

www.ign.com

Looks like they're confident it will have a long tail.

Thanks for sharing the article, it's an interesting read. Nice to see the aknowledgement that there have been issues with the launch and there's work to be done, and I share the optimism abut the future: in my opinion they can still make this game great while keeping the most controversial features (age transition, civ switching). I just hope it's not some sweet talk for the investors and they'll actually follow up and keep supporting the game for the years to come.

 

[Siptah]

It took us two years after the launch of Civ VI to receive a proper, full expansion. Do you think we are looking at the same timeline now?

Me personally? I think we‘ll see the first big expansion in 2026. It may introduce a classic San Marino experience without switching, but it will refine the transitions, crises, and legacy paths. It may also extend the last age.

 

[aelf]

Oh boy I'm seeing a lot of wild takes about the hidden meanings of every single statement in this earnings call. That's what civ fanatics do I guess.

And we haven't even checked Glassdoor for the latest allegations yet.

 

[Nares]

Yeah, I just think this one's different. The reception is different and the changes are far more alienating. The changes people want are to core game mechanics, which are unlikely to change that much at this point. I think Zelnick will be proven wrong in the long run.

I believe the legacy of Civ 7 will be either "the weird one" (at best) or "the bad one" (at worst).

Agreed. By comparison, 1UPT could be seen as a more minor change, one for which there was community support, even if the community was split.

I almost skipped Civ6 entirely, but eventually picked it up and found it enjoyable. Wonder and district placement are interesting enough mechanics, and I like that they emphasize the terrain. With over 700 hours played leading up to the release, I had already come to my own conclusion that it was time for builders to be retired, and that 1UPT needed to be made a bit more flexible; in that sense, Civ7 looked to be promising, and I could recognize in its overly simplified UI a whiff of base Civ6.

But crises, hard era changes and civ-swapping seem too radical a departure from the gameplay experience I'm looking for. The old model was fine; a single, persistent civilization, with unique enough gameplay to lean into, and persistent AIs with differentiated enough behavior to make them feel unique.

Of all the changes, it might be crises which bother me the most. I have experience modding both the AI and end-game crisis for Total War: Warhammer, and am of the opinion that crisis events serve to plaster over bad AI. Is there a way to do them right? Maybe. But in terms of artificially increasing difficulty, it's as poor a solution as the more traditional stat inflation.

 

[tman2000]

Looks like they're confident it will have a long tail.

I think they’re in denial. Firaxis and its Reddit bots are insisting on this narrative that “everything is fine” in spite of the numbers. Look at the posters here who are promoting theories of secret player counts that we can’t measure.

Corporate Take Two is validating the PR narrative that a few patches and updates will right the ship. There’s zero acknowledgment of the massive development failure or even strategic design mistakes.

Moderator Action: *SNIP* This talk is not allowed in the gaming forums. Stop now!. -lymond