Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Kev1916]

So are you just here to troll, then? Is every post going to be "this game is garbage" with no explanation or suggestions for making it better?

Shirley there has to be a thread or multiple threads about how to make the new "Civ" game better else were on the forum?

Maybe's avoid this thread and or except that to many Civ Fanatics that this version aint going get better ever .

​

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I think the problem is that there's no discussion. Since all this is pure speculation, there's nothing to argue about, just hundreds of "Yeah, it's bad" posts.

The saddest part is that there are actually bits of information, which would be possible to gather together as a community and analyze for meaningful results. But all the relevant threads are flooded with pure negativity posts.

The game releasing to an overwhelmingly negative user reception and having less players than its 15 year old predessecor not even a couple months after release is not pure speculation though

 

[Kwami]

Shirley there has to be a thread or multiple threads about how to make the new "Civ" game better else were on the forum?

Maybe's avoid this thread and or except that to many Civ Fanatics that this version aint going get better ever .

​

If you truly believe that the game is bad and that it's never going to get better, then why are you here at all?

 

[protocol7]

If speculation belongs anywhere though, surely it’s the dedicated speculation thread. And it doesn’t seem so crazy to me that people who don’t like something would be interested in speculating on why it’s so bad, especially if they were long term fans of the franchise. There doesn’t need to be malevolent intent there.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't think anyone is saying Civ7 has performed well. Even Firaxis have admitted as much in their last update, albeit in an oblique a way as marketing is likely to allow.

The question on everyone's minds is what can Firaxis do about it?

Would it need an expansion to turn things around or can it be done with DLC? They've had positive receptions to all the updates but so far it isn't moving the needle on player counts. Is a grander gesture needed?

Do they need to "classic-ify" Civ7? Can they do that without alienating the players who do like it?

If incremental change would be enough, what are the incremental changes?

How much leeway will 2K give them?

I'm playing to death and am still critical of Civ7 but there are so many gems at its core that I really hope something can turn the game around. I'm optimistic about what the devs have done so far, but I think a grand gesture is needed not incremental change. If I were to put anything in the crosshairs it would be civ switching. A mode where that is optional would be a big gesture made against one of the biggest bugbears people have against the game, and if it's a game mode then those who enjoy it can still do so. But whatever firaxis choose, I think short of something that big, the situation isn't going to improve...

 

[misesfan]

You don't have to nasty or hateful for the devs to listen and implement change, take the feedback channel in the official discord for example.

Here's the thing - I wasnt being hateful or nasty. I called the game terrible. I wasnt attacking anyone, I was critiquing the game. However, I was told that I was a troll, and that I am hateful, spiteful, etc... Critiquing my opinion is okay. If you like the game, you like the game. But why are you calling me a troll hater for describing this a trash game?

If you want only positive comments in these forums let me know - and I will enjoy the dumpster fire that inevitably results - because without any criticism nothing will change, and this game needs to change.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

If speculation belongs anywhere though, surely it’s the dedicated speculation thread. And it doesn’t seem so crazy to me that people who don’t like something would be interested in speculating on why it’s so bad, especially if they were long term fans of the franchise. There doesn’t need to be malevolent intent there.

The most popular threads on this forum have always been speculation too, so its baffling to me that it's dismissed. Speculation on this thread has led to over 100 pages of literal discussion too, this is the most popular discussion topic at the moment.

Sky is green though

 

[civlateintothenights]

If you truly believe that the game is bad and that it's never going to get better, then why are you here at all?

I think many people have written off this current iteration - but they're here for Civ 8, and hoping 7's crash is spectacular enough for 8 to never again go this route with these mechanics. There will be a Civ 8, afterall - they know if they actually follow the 1/3 formula, and don't try and reinvent the wheel, this game prints money.

 

[Kev1916]

If you truly believe that the game is bad and that it's never going to get better, then why are you here at all?

Good point, I’ll just stay away then

 

[Gorbles]

Here's a suggestion/critique I made three months ago. Change leaders and not nations during an age reset.

What kind of reception do you think that received from you glazers on this forum?

Changing leaders has been discussed a lot. The devs themselves made a blog post on it.

Maybe you missed all that?

Here's the thing - I wasnt being hateful or nasty. I called the game terrible. I wasnt attacking anyone, I was critiquing the game.

I literally just quoted you'd describing posters as "glazers"

Did I miss the compliment?

 

[MutilationWave]

It's funny, because I'm pretty critical about many aspects of the game. I'm an old timer who played since Civ1 and plays exclusively SP on PC, so a lot of Civ7 changes are not targeted at me.

But I separate my subjective view of the game and things which require objective view, like meaning of metrics or business decisions assessments. I can't remember in which areas I disagreed with you personally, but usually I have discussions in those areas.


Some time ago we've discussed that Civ7 is clearly aiming at extending the audience and we can't see the effect yet, because people who are not familiar with the franchise rarely buy the game at full price. If Firaxis could grab significant audience from say, teenagers, the game could get significantly more MP games.

Of course, they want to improve press first. And I really expect they'll add ability to end game in any age (by adding victory conditions for all ages), so MP games could fully benefit from age system, before some active campaign for new audience.

As someone who both started playing civ as a preteen and someone who knows real life teenagers-

I was definitely a weird one. Attention spans are at the lowest they've been in human history. I would love to see teenagers get into Civ because it would help their brain development (long term decision making) and maybe foster an interest in studying history. It did for me. I just can't see it capturing teen attention.

I showed the game to my 15 and 16 year old niece and nephew and my nephew straight up told me it looked like the most boring thing ever made. And they are both big gamers with diverse interests.

 

[Leucarum]

I think many people have written off this current iteration - but they're here for Civ 8, and hoping 7's crash is spectacular enough for 8 to never again go this route with these mechanics. There will be a Civ 8, afterall - they know if they actually follow the 1/3 formula, and don't try and reinvent the wheel, this game prints money.

I bowed out for Civ5 - that game just isn't for me - but innovations from it contributed to Civ6 which I played to death. Hoping for the worst outcome for 5 would have felt a bit extreme to me. I just sat back, enjoyed Civ4 for a little longer, and wished the best to those who do love 5.

 

[stealth_nsk]

As someone who both started playing civ as a preteen and someone who knows real life teenagers-

I was definitely a weird one. Attention spans are at the lowest they've been in human history. I would love to see teenagers get into Civ because it would help their brain development (long term decision making) and maybe foster an interest in studying history. It did for me. I just can't see it capturing teen attention.

I showed the game to my 15 and 16 year old niece and nephew and my nephew straight up told me it looked like the most boring thing ever made. And they are both big gamers with diverse interests.

I think teenagers are not homogenous, like any other large group of people.

Anyway, I don't have an answer as I didn't do any research. I just expect Firaxis to do it before investing that much into multiplayer.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

As someone who both started playing civ as a preteen and someone who knows real life teenagers-

I was definitely a weird one. Attention spans are at the lowest they've been in human history. I would love to see teenagers get into Civ because it would help their brain development (long term decision making) and maybe foster an interest in studying history. It did for me. I just can't see it capturing teen attention.

I showed the game to my 15 and 16 year old niece and nephew and my nephew straight up told me it looked like the most boring thing ever made. And they are both big gamers with diverse interests.

Even awknowledging that Firaxis didn't release this game with the intention of selling it to teenagers at discount prices, the reality is that the people who play Civ games for multiplayer are an absolute minority among the fanbase and 4X is an awful genre to try and make into a multiplayer-first focused experience.

It's kind of delusional to expect that this game is going to become a sudden success among young people looking for multiplayer experience, even with discounts (something no publisher wants to have to rely on for sales, they want to sell their titles at full price or as close to full price as possible)

 

[Kwami]

I think many people have written off this current iteration - but they're here for Civ 8, and hoping 7's crash is spectacular enough for 8 to never again go this route with these mechanics. There will be a Civ 8, afterall - they know if they actually follow the 1/3 formula, and don't try and reinvent the wheel, this game prints money.

There's no way that Firaxis and 2K are just going to write off Civ VII as a loss and move on to the next game any time soon. They've spent way too much time and money on this game to do that. No, instead, they're going to keep improving this game and (probably) release a couple of expansion packs in the coming years.

But even if Firaxis dropped VII right now and started on VIII, we still wouldn't see that new game for a few years.

 

[Captain Lime]

There's no way that Firaxis and 2K are just going to write off Civ VII as a loss and move on to the next game any time soon. They've spent way too much time and money on this game to do that. No, instead, they're going to keep improving this game and (probably) release a couple of expansion packs in the coming years.

But even if Firaxis dropped VII right now and started on VIII, we still wouldn't see that new game for a few years.

I could see them pulling a BE, doing one Expansion, then moving on if they're not able to turn the ship around by the time the game has been out a year. But I would still anticipate it being a solid five years from this point to make civ 8, maybe even six. Game dev times are just getting longer and longer.

 

[Kwami]

I could see them pulling a BE, doing one Expansion, then moving on if they're not able to turn the ship around by the time the game has been out a year.

Maybe, but BE was a side game. Each of IV, V, and VI got two proper expansions before the developers moved on to the next main sequence game.

Civ V had a pretty mixed launch, too, but the expansions made it so much better. I could see that happened again here.

(Though I believe that this game is quite substantially better than vanilla Civ V!)

 

[protocol7]

I think it’s way too early to count them out, they probably have a lot of time and budget remaining to improve things. It won’t be easy, but I think it’s possible and even without losing the people who like the game now.

If they just make small tweaks though and more or less continue as is, I guess it will continue to do slightly worse than BE and will have a similar lifecycle. But they don’t seem to really be indicating through words or actions that that’s the case.

 

[Chiyo]

There's no way that Firaxis and 2K are just going to write off Civ VII as a loss and move on to the next game any time soon. They've spent way too much time and money on this game to do that. No, instead, they're going to keep improving this game and (probably) release a couple of expansion packs in the coming years.

They will be looking at costs and returns though. Expansions are not for free but have to be developed as well. If you trained a horse to make money at horse racing but the horse does not succeed you will not put your money into the horse for its whole life cycle but you will get rid of it and look for better investments no matter how much it has already cost you. If player numbers are an indicator of how many people are willing to spend more money on this game then too few expansions might be sold to justify the costs of developing them for the next years. I agree though that we will see more updates and at least one true expansion before there is the slightest chance for the development of Civ7 being cancelled. If they get rid of eras and civ switching I will even give it another shot but I doubt that is going to happen.

 

[itix]

(Because this is a speculation thread, here are my thoughts...)

I was thinking you guys are way too optimistic about expanding and continuing development. It is dead, it won't recover, and it has saturated its market that is interested in this kind of 4X flavor. It is not worth further investment.

Then I realized it is not how big corporations work. Firaxis is not a private company that depends on a revenue stream. They (very likely) get a fixed yearly budget from the 2K and decisions for the next year are made relatively early. They are already securing funding for further Civ 7 development (DLCs) for 2026 and their 2026 spending as Firaxis. It won't include Civ 8.

It is only a matter of how Firaxis' CEO explains their Civ 7 journey to 2k managers. Since their CEO doesn't understand games, it is probably quite easy to explain that everything will be good. It is "invest $1 in us, and we make $2 for you" kind of talk. Then Firaxis devs try to make it happen. Asking for funds to start Civ 8 development would not be understood. 2K managers cant understand how the game could be dead after record pre-orders and good reviews. It sold a somewhat decent number of copies after all.

TL;DR: Like I said, I don't believe in Civ 7 anymore, it won't fly again. But Civ 7 is secured for another year and no Civ 8 for the foreseeable future.