Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Krajzen]

Which is one of the worst Steam user scores of a popular AAA game I have ever seen - go through the famous games considered most disappointing or most controversial and most of them surprisingly enough have like 60% score on Steam or higher, even those which are known to have been massive financial and critical bombs. I don't think I have ever seen a popular game on steam having less than 40%, even with review bombing and whatnot, and a TON of games casually surpass 90%. Contrary to intuitions Steam user score actually has a strong positive bias, so the 47% is actually not that close to the "50/50" or "5/10" as one may think, and dangerously close to the bottom of the average Steam discourse.

I think the dissonance stems from the fact that each individual review on Steam is simply binary like/dislike unlike sites like Metacritic with their user score being aggregate of individual 1-10 scores (there civ7 has a horrible 3.7/10 user score). Hence a lot of barely positive reviews which are actually closer to 6/10 than 10/10, like those quoted above by Xur.

Which again, matters a lot for the further sales, since there is a difference between the willingness to buy the expensive DLCs by the people who enthusiastically rate the gate as 8 or 9 on their subjective scales, and those "positive reviewers" who actually have a lot of mixed feelings, give it only a conditional support, or have merely mild sentiment towards it.

 

[GeneralZift]

Civ 4 visually aged the worst for me, can’t even look at it now.

I don’t want to reignite the 1UPT debate, but one of the biggest things you could do for the Civ6 AI is drastically nerf ranged units

Are ranged units OP or is AI incapable of countering them? This is two different conversations.
In Civ5, the ranged units are also very good. The AI in Civ5 is also a bit bad at countering them.
Again, I'm not sure if this is balance or if this is an AI issue.

I will say, cavalry should counter ranged units. Or maybe we need anti-ranged units ranged units -- like 'Skirmishers' from Age of Empires.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Are ranged units OP or is AI incapable of countering them? This is two different conversations.
In Civ5, the ranged units are also very good. The AI in Civ5 is also a bit bad at countering them.
Again, I'm not sure if this is balance or if this is an AI issue.

I will say, cavalry should counter ranged units. Or maybe we need anti-ranged units ranged units -- like 'Skirmishers' from Age of Empires.

I would say both. It’s way way too easy to focus fire and just delete the enemy. It’s bad gameplay and bad history

 

[Leucarum]

Civ 4 visually aged the worst for me, can’t even look at it now.

5 for me... I didn't even like Civ5's graphics when they were current.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Civ 4 visually aged the worst for me, can’t even look at it now.

Yep, Civ4 had big problems with graphics. First, it's the first 3D civilization game, having the same struggles as many other titles going from isometry to 3D, like low-poly models or weird view on changing camera angle. On top of this, for some reason authors decided to return to vertically oriented grid of Civ1 and its just bad.

 

[j51]

Yeah a IV remaster could be pretty great with a nice graphical overhaul, some kind of refinement of stacked combat, the replacement of “Native America” and the HRE, and a handful of new civs.

 

[queenpea]

I’d actually welcome more Civ 6 DLC with open arms - particularly if it works on the AI in the background.

Or even a remaster of V or IV would be very welcome

NFP and the Leader Pass were so fun (and they seemed successful/well-received?) I was hoping for a "Wonder Pass", or something like this at the time. I, too, would totally go for some new Civ VI content, even if this feels terribly unrealistic.

 

[Wrenched]

I would also buy new Civ VI DLC. Especially if it came with an AI tune up!

I would also absolutely purchase new Civ V content but know that wouldn't happen without some kind of remaster.

C'est la vie.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Yep, Civ4 had big problems with graphics. First, it's the first 3D civilization game, having the same struggles as many other titles going from isometry to 3D, like low-poly models or weird view on changing camera angle. On top of this, for some reason authors decided to return to vertically oriented grid of Civ1 and its just bad.

Oh absolutly, that sums it up well

 

[itix]

Reviews have ticked, once again, towards the negative. As of today, I am seeing a 47.59% positive Steam score.

There are more reviews than usual, matching the current sales boost.

 

[socratic]

There are also negative reviews which are actually positive. For example, there are people who like the game but give negative reviews because of Denuvo or pricing.

I don’t see how you can view that as being positive. Anyone saying the game costs too much is saying the game is not worth its price. That’s not positive, especially with a game so clearly designed around paid DLC like this one is

 

[GeneralZift]

I don’t see how you can view that as being positive. Anyone saying the game costs too much is saying the game is not worth its price. That’s not positive, especially with a game so clearly designed around paid DLC like this one is

I like the game, but only if it was offered for £5

 

[Maiq]

Which is one of the worst Steam user scores of a popular AAA game I have ever seen - go through the famous games considered most disappointing or most controversial and most of them surprisingly enough have like 60% score on Steam or higher, even those which are known to have been massive financial and critical bombs. I don't think I have ever seen a popular game on steam having less than 40%, even with review bombing and whatnot, and a TON of games casually surpass 90%. Contrary to intuitions Steam user score actually has a strong positive bias, so the 47% is actually not that close to the "50/50" or "5/10" as one may think, and dangerously close to the bottom of the average Steam discourse.

I think the dissonance stems from the fact that each individual review on Steam is simply binary like/dislike unlike sites like Metacritic with their user score being aggregate of individual 1-10 scores (there civ7 has a horrible 3.7/10 user score). Hence a lot of barely positive reviews which are actually closer to 6/10 than 10/10, like those quoted above by Xur.

Which again, matters a lot for the further sales, since there is a difference between the willingness to buy the expensive DLCs by the people who enthusiastically rate the gate as 8 or 9 on their subjective scales, and those "positive reviewers" who actually have a lot of mixed feelings, give it only a conditional support, or have merely mild sentiment towards it.

I am always going to bring it back to the newest Dragon Age. That game killed the franchise and Bioware while also being targeted by the worst of the worst gamers®. It is currently sitting at 68% on steam.

 

[trev1972]

Civ4 remaster would be quite nice, would give me a reason to play it for the first time.

Civ5 remaster would be very good - It's just a weirdly optimised game. Yesterday I was playing Civ5 and totally baffled as to why my Laptop fans are going crazy.
My PC is definitely good enough to be able to run Civ5, hell I mean, I can run Halo Infinite, GTA5, Hitman WOA with no difficulties.
So clearly something weird is going on there.

Civ6 DLC for the AI would be worth more than the expansions

I played the heck out of civ 4, it is probably my favourite and i would buy a remaster in a second, i am not sure how big the market would be.
If they did produce content for previous versions i suspect it would be 6, since 6 was so successful.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I played the heck out of civ 4, it is probably my favourite and i would buy a remaster in a second, i am not sure how big the market would be.
If they did produce content for previous versions i suspect it would be 6, since 6 was so successful.

I have to wonder, if they put out DLC for both 6 and 7 at the same time, if 6 would outsell it

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don’t see how you can view that as being positive. Anyone saying the game costs too much is saying the game is not worth its price. That’s not positive, especially with a game so clearly designed around paid DLC like this one is

When I was analyzing some small subset of reviews, one of the first negative reviews was not a complain about price, but about "predatory DLC" approach. That's not the critique of the game itself to me.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Ok, but broadly speaking, we are talking about things that might be off-putting to potential customers. That can include game design elements, but pricing strategy as well.

Other things too. Denuvo was an absolute deal-breaker for some.

 

[Gorbles]

Someone willing to only pay £5 doesn't seriously want to pay for the game.

Someone who thinks it's currently 5 or 10 quid too much, has a different perspective.

They shouldn't be conflated.

 

[socratic]

Civ-Switching, disconnected leaders, the odd roster choice, the immediate DLC. These things aren’t disconnected or coincidences. This game’s mechanics were absolutely made with DLC in mind. There is no other reason to have London as the inspiration for your game and then NOT include Britain or any associated leaders in the base product.

 

[Smegger213]

I have to wonder, if they put out DLC for both 6 and 7 at the same time, if 6 would outsell it

Civ 5 concurrent player count is about double what Civ 7 is getting at the moment. Civ 7 is struggling to get 8000 players on Steam now. This release can only be described as a utter disaster.