Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Kwami]

I mean... That's a little bit of a leap/kinda subjective.

There's many reasons beyond a "one more turn" feeling that might underlie lower than desired sales... And what even is "one more turn" feeling anyway. Seems like something everyone's gonna have a differend idea of.

A lot of people clearly aren't vibing with Civ7... But I don't think we can have quite that much certainty as to why.

I think you misunderstood my post.

The poster that I was responding to wrote that Civ games lost that "one more turn" feeling in V-VII. I simply said that based on the massive sales of V and VI and the OK sales of VII, I don't think that's correct. It's nothing to do with why people don't like VII.

 

[MutilationWave]

Where can you go to see sale stats and how many people are currently playing vs. other versions of the game?

SteamDB. Of course that's only Steam. We don't have conclusive data on console sales or players.

 

[Leucarum]

I think you misunderstood my post.

The poster that I was responding to wrote that Civ games lost that "one more turn" feeling in V-VII. I simply said that based on the massive sales of V and VI and the OK sales of VII, I don't think that's correct. It's nothing to do with why people don't like VII.

Aah fair enough

 

[Core Imposter]

I think you misunderstood my post.

The poster that I was responding to wrote that Civ games lost that "one more turn" feeling in V-VII. I simply said that based on the massive sales of V and VI and the OK sales of VII, I don't think that's correct. It's nothing to do with why people don't like VII.

You are somewhat misquoting me. I said, in addition to Sid's quote, that editions 5 through 7 have surrender the epic, strategic scale of the traditional Civ offerings. That is pretty undeniable.

The remark about putting the "one more turn" mechanic into the dustbin of history applies to Ed Beach's design choice to split the game into ages. These built-in breaks in gameplay literally break immersion by force. That is pretty undeniable.

The sales numbers of V and VI simply show there was a considerable market for spinoffs of the Civilization genre. It is my belief that had Firaxis indeed released a Civilization game at the time they released V it would have sold much better. A real 4x game is strategic in scope, not tactical. I have my own theories as to why they insisted on reducing scale, but the relevant fact is that Firaxis has vacated the strategic 4x space and we can be sure that this vacuum will be filled. We also will have to anticipate the impact that AGI will have. It's really quite exciting.

 

[Gorbles]

I am not blaming kids per se, I am blaming the devs' chasing them. My first Civ experience was Call to Power when I was full of snot.

Civ 1 was absolutely chasing a wide audience as far as gaming went in those days. The idea you could choose America in 5000BC means they 100% weren't chasing anyone with any more than a cursory interest in history. To say nothing of strategy games (which were still mostly in their infancy in the early 90s. Panzer General, anyone?).

 

[itix]

Civ 1 was absolutely chasing a wide audience as far as gaming went in those days. The idea you could choose America in 5000BC means they 100% weren't chasing anyone with any more than a cursory interest in history. To say nothing of strategy games (which were still mostly in their infancy in the early 90s. Panzer General, anyone?).

God games were already popular (Populous...) and I saw Civ 1 as a "spin-off" from that popular genre. In every Civ game, you are a god-like immortal leader, leading your people through time. But unlike other god games that put you in a fantasy setting, Civ 1 allows you to create an alt-history version of the real world. Many tribes were anachronisms but it was fun to play, and you could learn history as well.

Strategy games were booming in early 90s. First due to god genre, then because of Civ and then due to SSI games (Panzer General, Steel Panthers, etc) and we also got first RTS games (first Dune II, then C&C, or Blue Byte's excellent Settlers).

 

[SnowKomodo]

Honestly? That sounds great. What I've learned from my distaste of Civ7 is that the market is too centralized around Civ and an unfun (for me) Civ7 means I don't have a new 4X game to play for the next decade. I welcome new entrants to the category, maybe we can get some creative spins like fantasy Civ or more sci-fi options (GalCiv 2 was one of my favorites before). A rogue-like 4X game might be interesting, like Against The Storm did for city builders.

I'm with you here. My gaming life has revolved around the Civ series, yet I haven't played Civ 7 since launch because it's just not for me. It's to the point where, despite being so passionate about the last two entries Civ 5 and Civ 6 and putting in an ungodly amount of hours, I don't even have energy to think of why I don't like Civ 7 because it's so far removed from what I'm looking for. Nothing lasts forever, I guess

It's why this is my first post in a while and probably last, cause I've just kind of given up on playing Civ. Despite all this I'm ALWAYS happy to see when someone enjoys Civ because I remember when I loved early iterations of Civ 5 and 6, specifically how annoying it was when people would act like these early versions were objectively flawed. Civ 7 for some is a fun game, and I want to acknowledge that, and acknowledge that I'm probably just too rigid in what I've been used to from the franchise

Otherwise, I wish everyone in this amazing community well and I've had such great times on these forums!! Adiossssss (this randomly turned into a goodbye post, I guess I've realized I won't have a reason to come back here)

 

[Gorbles]

Strategy games were booming in early 90s. First due to god genre, then because of Civ and then due to SSI games (Panzer General, Steel Panthers, etc) and we also got first RTS games (first Dune II, then C&C, or Blue Byte's excellent Settlers).

CnC was '95. Classics like Homeworld even later on.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the early 90s. They were important! But they were the foundations of the genre. And the start of Civ itself as a distinct game.

 

[cknwo]

So introspect, Gen Z and some Mill don't like this game bc of TIkTok. The Civ team tried with getting rid of workers etc. but...

 

[Krajzen]

So introspect, Gen Z and some Mill don't like this game bc of TIkTok. The Civ team tried with getting rid of workers etc. but...

Yeah, especially on this forum where half of people dislike it despite the average user being born before the fall of Rome

 

[VGT]

unfun (for me) Civ7 means I don't have a new 4X game to play for the next decade

I'm with you here. My gaming life has revolved around the Civ series, yet I haven't played Civ 7 since launch because it's just not for me. It's to the point where, despite being so passionate about the last two entries Civ 5 and Civ 6 and putting in an ungodly amount of hours, I don't even have energy to think of why I don't like Civ 7 because it's so far removed from what I'm looking for. Nothing lasts forever, I guess

Don't know if you guys were dipping your toes into civ competitors while playing civ in the past. For me it was always the case of "ah, new 4x game just released. But civ is my main title and I have time only for one of those so civ it is". I'm finding civ7 failing for me is great time to check what was going on in this genre in last decade. Stellaris and AoW4 is getting more hours from me now because I always liked those games. Soon after civ 7 release I bought Old World, played two campaigns and it's looking great. Looking forward to give more hours to this game. Played Endless Space 2 campaign recently after long break from this game and while not as polished, still had fun. On my todo list is to try Humankind that was sitting in my library with 0 hours for years so I can finally understand all those "civ7 is Humankind 2" memes. I'm considering buying Ara since I'm hearing good things about it and bad things I'm hearing (too much micromanagement) is something I'm into so it's also good thing for me.

Even finally I have time for other genres that were always loosing with civ. I could finish Expedition 33 on release. Didn't get that chance when BG3 was released, so now i have ongoing campaign in BG3, that finally have a chance to be finished instead of being abandoned, tried Oxygen Not Included for the first time and I had no idea I have another Dwarf Fortress/Rimworld like game in my library.

And more on the thread topic: yes, this means I'm -1 on all those counting of civ franchise players. But i'm not hiding on console with millions of others as some suggests, I just left. Was posting here in the past that a lot of angry posts on this forum is people still caring and when it will reach apathy, then finally this game will be in big trouble. Well, I put my money where my mouth is - it starts with me. I'm no longer posting angry rants here, not getting triggered by flawed (in my opinion) arguments. Just lurking and throwing snarky smile from time to time while reading some posts.

 

[aieeegrunt]

It's the only thing that would convince me to maybe try Civ VII if it's on some huge sale. Ugly megacities is another thing preventing me from tring Civ VII, but it's not as repulsive as mandatory civ changing.

The trajectory of V, VI and now VII really seem to drive home the point that preordering is for suckers willing to *pay* to be beta testers.

In two years you get a complete game that is, well as functional as they will make it at a fraction of the price

I still can't get over how much has this debacle got worse because of the enormous delay between the games release and the access to mod tools and Steam Workshop. Is it mandated by 2K or just part of the "de facto early access" strategy?

of all strategy games that could get this FOUR MONTH delay this has to be the worst

Warhammer 3 had quite contentious release (though not nearly as bad) due to the very strangely designed initial campaign, but guess what? Just like almost all other big strategy games, whether CA's or Paradox' or whoever, it had mod tools since day 0. Players immediately got to fix and tweak and redesign and customize stuff beyond waiting for patches, and it clearly had a great impact on the game's ultimate success.

Imagine if Civ7 started with some decent moddability on release. Boom, one way or another people would improve the UI, tweak ages and transitions, modify map scripts, add more legacy paths, find some way to reintroduce "classic mode" persistent civs, start designing new leaders and civs to fill the gaps, make religion bearable etc etc. There is no way it wouldn't have impacted the player count positively.

But thanks to this briliant delay we are going to get modding capabilities at the time when plenty of the potential modders and their players have already stopped playing, maybe for good.

I have no idea why The Bethesda Lesson has not been learned by every publisher of primarily single player games.

Supporting a healthy modding community adds tremendous percieved value to your game and provides you with an enthusiastic army of free testers, QA, bug fixers and content creators. The only reason I spent money on VI and still play it is the mods

The only reason to oppose it is if you are some corporate desk muppet who thinks it’ll compete with DLC sales or something similarily idiotic.

It actually increases sales, because modders almost always have “all DLC” as a requirement for their mods

But that’s a monetizing corporate muppet for you

They should probably re-assign this group to a different set of tasks then, because this game plays like it had zero QA testing.

This isn’t on the volunteer testers, because I’m sure they point out the bugs, and I’m sure the Dev team wouldn’t mind being paid to fix them

This is on some corporate desk muppet not wanting to pay to fix them, and Oh My God does it show. The AI science typo bug from VI is the best example.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

I don't think we need to fall back on "kids these days" why civ7 isn't doing as great as it could be, and as we'd like it to. I'm sure there's still young people like we were when we were young people. Some of them may even be here.

I work in higher education and a surprising number of students who I worked with were very public fans of Civ 6. None have mentioned anything about 7, though I have mostly new students by now compared to 2022 when I was hearing that a lot

 

[user746383]

Nobody is really talking about civ7 in general non-civ discussion spaces, though. So I don’t think you can read too much into that on its own.

 

[CliffCo]

I work in higher education and a surprising number of students who I worked with were very public fans of Civ 6. None have mentioned anything about 7, though I have mostly new students by now compared to 2022 when I was hearing that a lot

That might possibly change as they introduce more world leaders they easily recognize and relate to rather than famous people

 

[Askia Muhammad]

That might possibly change as they introduce more world leaders they easily recognize and relate to rather than famous people

I don’t think that’s really an issue for that age range - in fact, a lot more people I meet on a regular basis recognize Harriet Tubman or Machiavelli before Frederick Barbarossa or Harald Hadrada.

In my experience, it’s usually the older gamers in their late 30s or older - usually men - who are very concerned with the inclusion of lesser known leaders

 

[GeneralZift]

I somehow think that Civ6 nailed the younger audience a lot better than any other game in the series.
Their art style and the way they use colours to represent themes and yields makes it very approachable.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

I somehow think that Civ6 nailed the younger audience a lot better than any other game in the series.
Their art style and the way they use colours to represent themes and yields makes it very approachable.

I agree - Civ 7 badly needs the color coded buildings - it’s just good UX design

 

[Lord Lakely]

It's less about fame and more about "should this person lead a whole Civilization?", isn't it?

One can absolutely make an argument that Machiavellli, Battuta and Lovelace have no business being a part of the roster.

At least borderline choices such as Kong, Franklin, Lafayette, Tubman and Rizal you can argue they're like Gandhi and Joan of Arc - they demonstrated exceptional leadership qualities in their life and hypothetically could have led their Civ in an alternate universe. And likely would have done a good job at it too!

Personally, i just roleplay the weird leaders as being hired experts by the actual leader of the Civ (you) to function as the head of government.

 

[socratic]

Like with a lot with Civ 7, I think expanding the leader selection was a great idea, just poorly executed. I don't understand the idea behind adding leaders with next to no connection with any playable civs. Having the national hero of the Phillippines without the Phillippines to lead is just wasted potential. The same can be said about leaders from civs that were already represented. I'm stuck wondering how we have 2 Americans, 2 Frenchmen, 3 Germans playable when all of East Asia has 4, two of which have no relation to any civs... I can go on and on about this because it bugs me so much (not a single Greek leader?? Simon Bolivar over literally any Mexican figure??) The leader pool feels so limiting at the moment, when expanding the roster should have done the opposite of that