Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[AD1730]

I would speculate that the age transition system is perceived as a successful addition to gameplay. I don't think there was any significant criticism by the community towards it.

This is just completely wrong, and there are many here who believe that Civ 7's age system is more damaging than civ switching.

 

[King Flevance]

As much as people don't want to believe it, I think in the current landscape, just about any game has the possibility of going bankrupt and being shut down. Okay, sure, some games are just machines that print money, but for a game like civ, it's a long development cycle, the company would have put in an awful lot to get it out there, and if the counts are down and they're not selling what they expect, there's definitely a strong chance that the people at the top won't keep throwing money at it.

This is why Civ switching will probably not return after Civ 7, but Civ as a franchise will survive as they lead the market with an entire demographic. Sales for the series have been steadily trending up with each release until now. Sales have been so good that this series has actually influenced a growth in the entire genre. So as much as many don't want to believe it, Civ 7's release will not make 2k abandon the most popular franchise in its genre. I am sure someone would be willing to buy and acquire it even if they did. Civilization is obviously a profitable franchise.

Now, granted, the "good" about a game like civ is that since it's out there, and it doesn't rely on some online server infrastructure or anything, they could "shut down" the game and people could still play it. And the marginal cost to put out DLC content probably means that even if the game is being trimmed down, they could probably keep enough people on to put together enough to release some DLC packs.

The problem though I would think is that if the game just doesn't perform up to par on the long term, they lose enough players that the DLC aren't profitable, etc... it's more likely that the studio just wouldn't have the runway to really run a long development cycle for like a civ 8, and would conceivably shut down. Sid himself obviously isn't doing the hands-on work as much, but it's not inconceivable that he goes off on a full retirement with this iteration of the game, and if the studio isn't confident that the next iteration would turn things around, they might rather just not have another iteration.

Now, granted, I don't actually know the internal structure of the studio. So there's certainly always a possibility that 2k looks at the books and doesn't want to pursue a Civ 8, but the Firaxis team still do, and they either reach a deal, or sell them off, or the employees all leave and start a new studio, or whatever. But in this day and age, with how expensive some stuff is, one bad year or one bad release could be the end of the line for anything.

This sounds like an argument that I believe the game development market holders use to justify some really crappy practices. If the market was so risky we wouldn't see so many companies risking "hundreds of millions of dollars" (so they say) to make a game and have a bad week. There is a such thing known as "Hollywood budgeting" where you artificially inflate the cost and it works great for generating hype and it works great for tax purposes. As an added bonus you generate consumer sympathy for your arrogant strategies by saying that you "risk" all that money "for them".

Like I said before, look at how much time and money Beyond Earth had dumped into it as a standalone title with minimal brand recognition. It basically marketed itself with the tag line "From the creators of the Civilization Franchise" Yet it was not a Civ game, it was an Alpha Centauri remodel. (A redesign of a 1 time spin off game that never got a sequel) Yet, it got a lot of effort to salvage its market presence and an expansion before they cut it loose. I would bet that 2k knew the risk involved with this release and already had a few contingencies in place to try and turn the ship around in this worst case scenario. Many games in the market have proven this to be true that are not even market leaders in their genre. Right now, I don't doubt that Firaxis has 2k breathing down their necks to make this thing more positive with the market reviews and they are probably assuring them they can. And they are certainly desperate to make the game loved by the fanbase for their jobs but also for the sake of wanting to be part of making a good entry to the franchise. They want fan approval for both reasons but 2k is mostly worried about the monetization this new model offered I bet.
So I do expect we may get a half assed classic mode eventually just to garner some good will. But if this iteration was a monetization tactic, they are not going to just give up. "Classic mode" cannot be allowed to be so good as to detour DLC sales - so it will be tacked on. They will expect push back before everyone just accepts it and buys in. They knew they would catch resistance for at least a year, and then people will wear down and buy into what they cannot change. They are not at risk of losing money yet. 2k has their sports games that print money which allows them to be more strategic at milking money out of other fanbases. I think this whole thing is an aggressive push into our fanbase personally. One fueled by Paradox's successful model in the genre.

 

[Maiq]

This is just completely wrong, and there are many here who believe that Civ 7's age system is more damaging than civ switching.

Boom. I've hated civ switching from the moment Dennis was setting it up in that first reveal stream. I still hate it and want nothing to do with it but after playing 100 hours at launch I wouldn't rank it in the top 10 things wrong with the game.

 

[Kev1916]

I would speculate that the age transition system is perceived as a successful addition to gameplay. I don't think there was any significant criticism by the community towards it.

Perhaps open eyes and or have a look at all the negative reviews kicking about , there is no danger that age transition is viewed other ( in the main ) as another nonsense decision.

Civ switching and age re-set's are comparable to sickness and diarrhea.

Both will be done away with re any future Civ game

 

[reyaik]

The majority of the criticism is about civ switching. The ages can be well tailored by now to make them almost inconsequential. So I don't think it's a major sticking point, and most criticism has not been focused on this by the majority of reviews. The reason it likely remain in the future is also the ability to have more specific elements of civilisations represented in those ages, which provides for a monetisation route for the publisher. So from a gameplay and commercial perspective, I don't think ages are all that dramatically bad or badly received.

 

[AD1730]

The majority of the criticism is about civ switching. The ages can be well tailored by now to make them almost inconsequential. So I don't think it's a major sticking point, and most criticism has not been focused on this by the majority of reviews. The reason it likely remain in the future is also the ability to have more specific elements of civilisations represented in those ages, which provides for a monetisation route for the publisher. So from a gameplay and commercial perspective, I don't think ages are all that dramatically bad or badly received.

Sorry, you're just wrong and now you are moving the goalposts. There is significant criticism of the age system on this forum and in other places. Every conversation about pacing, balance, and specific eras (Modern seems to catch the most flak) involves the age system.

 

[stealth_nsk]

As much as people don't want to believe it, I think in the current landscape, just about any game has the possibility of going bankrupt and being shut down. Okay, sure, some games are just machines that print money, but for a game like civ, it's a long development cycle, the company would have put in an awful lot to get it out there, and if the counts are down and they're not selling what they expect, there's definitely a strong chance that the people at the top won't keep throwing money at it.

On one hand I totally agree, there's always a chance to lose on a competitive market.

On the other hand, large corporations are really hard to sink and 2K is a multibillion corporation. It has a lot of resources to survive - from credits to restructurings. So even if Civ7 will be unsuccessful (we'll know it much later), I don't think there's a risk of bankruptcy.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The majority of the criticism is about civ switching. The ages can be well tailored by now to make them almost inconsequential. So I don't think it's a major sticking point, and most criticism has not been focused on this by the majority of reviews. The reason it likely remain in the future is also the ability to have more specific elements of civilisations represented in those ages, which provides for a monetisation route for the publisher. So from a gameplay and commercial perspective, I don't think ages are all that dramatically bad or badly received.

I'm curious about your data on this? Over what period of time did you analyze the reviews to assess that civ-switching is what people are complaining about?

I just looked at the last 10 negative reviews on Steam - not a big survey, but as much time as I felt like putting into this right now. 1 of those reviews complained about civ-switching, 3 of them complained about the age system. 5 of those 10 reviews didn't get into any details at all (1. "This is an absolute miss." 2. "go play humankind. Or an older CIV title. But this. This is merely sad." 3. "refunded really lacks depth" 4. "I'm tired boss" 5. "This game is ... unfinished.").

Anyway, I think you're underestimating how many people dislike the reset mechanisms on age changes. I'm not sure civ-switching is even top 3 in terms of what people complain about (age system resets, not fun, and the UI seem like they may be the top 3 to me, with civ-switching a close 4th).

 

[Crashdummy]

The majority of the criticism is about civ switching. The ages can be well tailored by now to make them almost inconsequential. So I don't think it's a major sticking point, and most criticism has not been focused on this by the majority of reviews. The reason it likely remain in the future is also the ability to have more specific elements of civilisations represented in those ages, which provides for a monetisation route for the publisher. So from a gameplay and commercial perspective, I don't think ages are all that dramatically bad or badly received.

I dont think you are reading much of the feedback. Both civ switching and age transitioins are about equally rejected by a lot of people

Moreso, a lort of people think Age transition did more harm than civ switching to Civ 7

 

[kotpeter]

I'm curious about your data on this? Over what period of time did you analyze the reviews to assess that civ-switching is what people are complaining about?

I just looked at the last 10 negative reviews on Steam - not a big survey, but as much time as I felt like putting into this right now. 1 of those reviews complained about civ-switching, 3 of them complained about the age system. 5 of those 10 reviews didn't get into any details at all (1. "This is an absolute miss." 2. "go play humankind. Or an older CIV title. But this. This is merely sad." 3. "refunded really lacks depth" 4. "I'm tired boss" 5. "This game is ... unfinished.").

Anyway, I think you're underestimating how many people dislike the reset mechanisms on age changes. I'm not sure civ-switching is even top 3 in terms of what people complain about (age system resets, not fun, and the UI seem like they may be the top 3 to me, with civ-switching a close 4th).

Occasionally I take a glimpse of recent Civ 7 reviews, and to my surprise, a significant portion of negative reviews is published by players with 30+ hours of playtime.

And I agree that most negative reviews are either useless ("civ 6 is great, this one is bad", "humankind is better", etc.) or mention age transitions more than civ switching.

I guess people don't like being disrupted and thrown out of the game (out of their flow pull of plans and emotions) into a main menu-like window, to make the decision they didn't want to make in the 1st place and spend a few minutes on the loading screen with WTH feelings on their faces.

Only to be greeted with new in-game objectives, which forces them to discard everything they planned because "the game says so".

It's possible to get used to it, but for the first impression this is really bad. And for many of us with limited free time and money, first impression is often the last one.

(I wonder if this is new feedback and if I should submit it to a feedback channel)

 

[GeneralZift]

Well the Civ switching and the Age system being separate reasons to hate the game is a moot point because they're interlocked and form the majority of the actual gameplay loop that players go through.

Every decision in the game is then framed in the perspective of these systems, without these systems it's simply not 'Civ7' and with these systems it's sort of unpopular.

So if it's like splitting hairs, whether it's the Ages or the Civ switching exactly. Civ switching is sort of the 'front' of the coin and the Ages system is the 'back' of the coin. That coin is one penny by the way

 

[Core Imposter]

I have said from the beginning that the age breaks were the main blunder because it gives people almost a hint to stop playing. The whole internet copied Sid's "one more turn" trick and it's amazing that Firaxis was the company to pull the plug on it. The very definition of "own goal". Somebody ought to lose their job for this, and I am sure somebody will.

But there is a problem with continuing the series. Almost idea that anybody ever had was either incorporated or rejected for one reason or another. So, what to do?

 

[Krajzen]

Almost every idea that anybody has ever had was either incorporated or rejected for one reason or another. So, what to do?

I am not entirely sure I understand what are you trying to say. I think it's actually a logically empty tautological statement - I mean, when somebody has had some idea, what is the alternative to it having been either incorporated or rejected?

If you meant that all the ideas for the civ-like 4X game have been exhausted and no new ones cannot appear, well, how do you know that?

 

[reyaik]

If you play with the current build, as an example, Han > Ming > Qing and have the age settings on continuity, crises off, and know how to play the game a little I don't think the transition is a distraction from a gameplay or role-play point of view. As Firaxis delivers more civilisaiton choices over time this expirience is not subject to playing "China" or "India" anymore. So I really don't think the ages system is the culprit anymore.

 

[Xur]

If you play with the current build, as an example, Han > Ming > Qing and have the age settings on continuity, crises off, and know how to play the game a little I don't think the transition is a distraction from a gameplay or role-play point of view. As Firaxis delivers more civilisaiton choices over time this expirience is not subject to playing "China" or "India" anymore. So I really don't think the ages system is the culprit anymore.

In order for that to work for all civs I guess you’d have to pay 500€ of DLC. Not sure that’s worth hoping for. Maybe it works for 1% of the playerbase. People will have moved on long before all this DLC is released.

Before any of that happens I suspect Firaxis moved on to civ8, fired Ed or liquidated the company and start the franchise over with someone else under 2K.

 

[Leucarum]

This is just completely wrong, and there are many here who believe that Civ 7's age system is more damaging than civ switching.

i think it is fair to say that the criticism of civ switching is more unpopular as a concept while the implementation of eras is more unpopular.

 

[Crashdummy]

If you play with the current build, as an example, Han > Ming > Qing and have the age settings on continuity, crises off, and know how to play the game a little I don't think the transition is a distraction from a gameplay or role-play point of view. As Firaxis delivers more civilisaiton choices over time this expirience is not subject to playing "China" or "India" anymore. So I really don't think the ages system is the culprit anymore.

Of course its a distraction. You are removed from the game and sent into a Civ selection screen. You have buildings that suddenly stop working. Your wars stop (even in continuity), you get new objectives. And a lot more changes

Age transitions even in continuity are a HUGE immersion break and a point that invites you to close the game and stop playing

And Han > Ming > Qing doesnt matter, they are all three different Civs, there is no continuity between them. Those of us that are not playing because age transitions and civ switching do not ciosider that chain as a solution, its just as bas a Rome > Hawai

 

[aieeegrunt]

Occasionally I take a glimpse of recent Civ 7 reviews, and to my surprise, a significant portion of negative reviews is published by players with 30+ hours of playtime.

And I agree that most negative reviews are either useless ("civ 6 is great, this one is bad", "humankind is better", etc.) or mention age transitions more than civ switching.

I guess people don't like being disrupted and thrown out of the game (out of their flow pull of plans and emotions) into a main menu-like window, to make the decision they didn't want to make in the 1st place and spend a few minutes on the loading screen with WTH feelings on their faces.

Only to be greeted with new in-game objectives, which forces them to discard everything they planned because "the game says so".

It's possible to get used to it, but for the first impression this is really bad. And for many of us with limited free time and money, first impression is often the last one.

(I wonder if this is new feedback and if I should submit it to a feedback channel)

Remember that this happens…

TWICE.

I have no idea how people are still trying to deny that civ switching and era resets have failed. Civ7 is a unique failure in the history of the mainstream Civ series

What else about it is different?

And to those insisting that the Civilization series, or more specifically the dev team responsible for this is bulletproof….

Halo was an absolute TITAN of gaming at one point. Halo 2 sold twice as many units in it’s first day as Civ6 did it’s first month, and where is 343 Studios now?

Dust and echoes.

 

[King Flevance]

And to those insisting that the Civilization series, or more specifically the dev team responsible for this is bulletproof….

Halo was an absolute TITAN of gaming at one point. Halo 2 sold twice as many units in it’s first day as Civ6 did it’s first month, and where is 343 Studios now?

Dust and echoes.

First, there is a lot that happened between Halo 2 and Bungie's exit. (3 games and 6 years) When 343 took over. Second, 343 Industry has become Halo Studios.

One bad release didnt tank that franchise. An entire generation of time and mediocre game releases has decayed that franchise to what it is today. Halo was a titan franchise 15 years ago when Halo Reach launched. But Reach was the last time I have heard much hype about Halo.

The Civ franchise is not bulletproof but it has been growing more more and more profitable for the last 20 years. One poor release won't tank it and I think that should appear obvious. But I think the problem many fans have with seeing that is that they are so upset they think it "deserves to". Plus, now days the industry likes to talk about how expensive their overhead is while ignoring the fact that profits/stock is going up as gaming continues to be the highest earning entertainment industry by a very large margin.

 

[Crashdummy]

I dont think Civ 7 will bankrupt Firaxis/2k

But i do consider it a major failure