Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gorbles]

I’ve been playing Civ since the first one came on actially floppy discs and not once have I paid attention to the victory conditions, so you couldn’t be more wrong about your attempt to normalize Civ7’s railroad by saying “they’re all like that”

The plural of anecdote is not data I'm afraid.

I've (also) played since the first Civ and I've always wanted to know how the game defines a victory. Because, it's harder to win otherwise.

It's easy to say "Civ VII isn't doing well". It's harder to analyse why. Certain assumptions suggest overlap, but that overlap isn't guaranteed. You don't know. You simply presume.

 

[Crashdummy]

As things are, it's pretty clear that the devs have gotten the message wrt age transitions and civ-switching. They've been making more and more concessions, and that's the direction the game is clearly going in. At this point, I think it's fair to say that someone would either be on the road to being mollified or, chances are, they will never be convinced. I'm not sure what continuing to dunk on those design decisions will achieve anymore.

Maybe, but i dont see the issue either. These discussions are encapsulated in very few threads, whats the problem with continuing discussing them?

They may end up in something constructive and helpful, or not, it doesnt really matter since they are just a small part of the forum

 

[Core Imposter]

Civ VI, the whole shebang, is on sale for about $20.

 

[aelf]

Nope. That is a personal opinion. Is Firaxis milking customers?

Answer: See, it depends on whom you are asking.

I wasn't talking about truth or falsity of a fact, but about whether milking customers can be considered a good thing (hardly).

I referenced this acknowledgement when I said "I do get your point, it is frustrating when people go on a crusade against something that either doesn't affect them or just to ruin the experience of others." So I do actually understand what you are communicating from your perspective.


I think that is too presumptuous considering we are talking about millions of opinions or thousands if just referencing this particular forum. Even if we ignore your very black and white perspective on people's ability to quickly adjust what you have already defined as "purely emotional" (reactionary) responses to completely logical ones - we still have the largest question on everyone's mind right now of "What direction is Civ 7 headed in?" which the main talking point right now in that discussion is that it is all pure speculation because we have now entered a phase where there is no road map. Plus, sometimes it is as simple as people just like to express themselves to others that will care in some way about their opinion. They simply want to feel heard.


It is true, and I mostly disagree with your assessment mostly because those parameters have varying impacts on different peoples view. A sort of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" kind of thing. Some people will look at Civ 7 as a "whole" but your previous expression you used was that they should dissect the parts to be "fair" in their discussion. But they are not required to if the "whole" better communicates their perspective. Some will totally break down what they dislike into the parts. Some will take the "good" for granted within the industry today. Is that fair? By what standard? A message board of casual conversation? I would say that's fair under those standards.

We cannot assume to know why the game was designed the way it was. (For DLC or innovation) But both are plausible suggestions. Both could be true, those are not 2 ends of a single scale, those are 2 totally separate layers of design. Even the assignment of "good" or "bad" as you vaguely infer needs clarification. Good for what? Good for who? Good how? Just "good" or "bad" is too vague. I often like to make the joke "I only like things that are cool and hate things that suck" to parody this mentality. I do see your point but making sweeping generalizations has become something of a kryptonite in society. And usually people justify it by saying "they do it too" or "well it is probably true".

You seem to be saying that the quality of discourse on a gaming forum is allowed to be poor. I guess? But that's beside the point. The only people allowing or disallowing anything are the mods. Despite the usual pearl clutching about non-mod members of the forum 'disallowing' criticism, we have no power to do that, only the ability to critique. And so far, it appears that criticism of the game is acceptable but criticism of the criticism is not.

Again, it parallels the rhetoric from certain segments that criticising their views is considered censorship and impinging on their rights.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I wasn't talking about truth or falsity of a fact, but about whether milking customers can be considered a good thing (hardly).

I don't understand how the term "milking" could be used in the same context with discussion of commercial success. If product doesn't bring superprofit and profits at all are questionable, it's not milking, it's a business model.

 

[socratic]

I don't understand how the term "milking" could be used in the same context with discussion of commercial success. If product doesn't bring superprofit and profits at all are questionable, it's not milking, it's a business model.

It’s a predatory business model that plays on FOMO and the incomplete state of a game to sell more. Remember, games used to release with all of their content at launch. DLC would only release months or even years after. Any game that sells DLC from launch is taking content that would’ve been in the base game and asking people to pay more for it. I’ll concede that Civ 7 never did anything as egregious as lock whole mechanics behind a Day 1 Paywall, but immediately selling Civs is still ridiculous.

 

[King Flevance]

You seem to be saying that the quality of discourse on a gaming forum is allowed to be poor. I guess? But that's beside the point. The only people allowing or disallowing anything are the mods. Despite the usual pearl clutching about non-mod members of the forum 'disallowing' criticism, we have no power to do that, only the ability to critique. And so far, it appears that criticism of the game is acceptable but criticism of the criticism is not.

Again, it parallels the rhetoric from certain segments that criticising their views is considered censorship and impinging on their rights.

I am saying there is allowed to be discourse. The mods make sure things don't go too far and they do a pretty good job of it IMO. The community is divided right now and nobody is more right about their own opinion than anybody else. I spoke up because I disagree with the notion of assuming things about people simply if they use a term or not; even if the term is sometimes misused. Even if it was used in a joke.

After that, you quoted me questioning my perspective and I responded.

It is all in how you approach it. Some people are not countering criticism of the game with actual countercriticism. They are just trying to invalidate or trivialize the other person's view due to taste, motive, or any other reason which isn't debate over the game it is a personal tactic to sidestep game discussion and silence that person because you don't like their criticism. This will only encourage those posters to shout louder or to make personal attacks on those who did it to them.

Some people on both sides are stating things in a purposely hostile manner. If someone is going to use the "quality of the community" as a defensive position they should make sure that actually is their concern/interest. (**That statement that is not meant to infer anything about anyone directly**) Fighting for critical/negative game opinions to quiet down is not a fight for the community is a fight for the game itself by nature of the goal. Again, I think discourse should be allowed. I have simply shared how I think approaching things would actually help the community. Negative comments will become quieter when either they feel like they have "been heard" or when they feel like they are shouting into the darkness with no effect. (I doubt anyone is going to the Bon Jovi forums to post about Civ 7 criticisms.) But if people here are engaging with them with more negativity, win! People are engaging! That is what they are seeking, to feel heard regardless of response. Only now, they have someone to attack since they have been attacked first.

That is just my view on it though. I am no mod, and I am not even trying to tell anyone how they are "supposed to" post. I am just explaining my perspective and, at best, suggesting ways to approach this problem should anyone see value in me sharing my perspective.

 

[Gorbles]

It’s a predatory business model that plays on FOMO and the incomplete state of a game to sell more. Remember, games used to release with all of their content at launch. DLC would only release months or even years after. Any game that sells DLC from launch is taking content that would’ve been in the base game and asking people to pay more for it. I’ll concede that Civ 7 never did anything as egregious as lock whole mechanics behind a Day 1 Paywall, but immediately selling Civs is still ridiculous.

Incorrect (the bolded parts). Content that was cut from the game due to scope issues, technical complications or even mismanagement was simply left incomplete in the past.

Can publishers use the digital infrastructure gaming platforms like Steam has to cut up content? Yes, they can.

But doesn't mean that they are. Typically, in the olden days, when a game literally went "gold, this referred to the master, original disk copy. At that point content was literally locked - on the disk. Teams were often re-allocated (and contractors let go).

What happens nowadays is the logistics of going "gold" still happens, but work is then started on the (normally inevitable, unfortunately) day 0 / 1 patch, and post-launch content.

This is how DLC can be ready at the same time as the game releases. It doesn't mean it was cut from anywhere. In the olden days, such content simply wouldn't exist, and wouldn't be in the base game.

 

[King Flevance]

DLC is weird because there are models that I like and others I don't. I understand the "milking" criticisms but it doesn't affect me (or you unless you opt in) directly because I am extremely picky on buying DLCs and rarely do. Once upon a time you have to shell out $40 for an expansion pack and you could look at it as a whole bundle of DLC. This usually made the whole package more cohesive, which was a nice bonus. Now days expansion are pretty small and they offer add-on DLCs. Now that add-ons are more isolated, I rarely feel an urge to buy them. When I do, it is on a steam sale where I can grab the few I want for a couple dollars years after it has been out.

I have to say we gamers as a whole have done this to ourselves. I am not mad at someone who wants to spend $100s of dollars on a game and its DLCs but I am not envious of "all that content" they get either, even on my favorite titles. If a game is barebones without the DLC, I simply play other games instead even if it is a favorite title. This concerns me about Civ 7 but even worst case, the 4x genre has really filled out well over the past 20 years. So I am not part of that 'whale' demographic. I have a library of about 100 games I could play for the rest of my life that I love and would be happy and content. So, a new game has to offer something special for me to care and DLC is not that.

I do like that DLC models are a way to sustain long term development, but it is unfortunate that business models seem to have developers come to rely on it to the point that it feels like games have diminishing returns on investment for some reason. Half-baked DLCs for quick money has been a thing since DLCs came out. I do like it when everything is priced so that if you bundled it, it would be the equivalent of ~$40-50 and content comparable to an expansion pack.

 

[AD1730]

DLC is weird because there are models that I like and others I don't. I understand the "milking" criticisms but it doesn't affect me (or you unless you opt in) directly because I am extremely picky on buying DLCs and rarely do. Once upon a time you have to shell out $40 for an expansion pack and you could look at it as a whole bundle of DLC. This usually made the whole package more cohesive, which was a nice bonus. Now days expansion are pretty small and they offer add-on DLCs. Now that add-ons are more isolated, I rarely feel an urge to buy them. When I do, it is on a steam sale where I can grab the few I want for a couple dollars years after it has been out.

I have to say we gamers as a whole have done this to ourselves. I am not mad at someone who wants to spend $100s of dollars on a game and its DLCs but I am not envious of "all that content" they get either, even on my favorite titles. If a game is barebones without the DLC, I simply play other games instead even if it is a favorite title. This concerns me about Civ 7 but even worst case, the 4x genre has really filled out well over the past 20 years. So I am not part of that 'whale' demographic. I have a library of about 100 games I could play for the rest of my life that I love and would be happy and content. So, a new game has to offer something special for me to care and DLC is not that.

I do like that DLC models are a way to sustain long term development, but it is unfortunate that business models seem to have developers come to rely on it to the point that it feels like games have diminishing returns on investment for some reason. Half-baked DLCs for quick money has been a thing since DLCs came out. I do like it when everything is priced so that if you bundled it, it would be the equivalent of ~$40-50 and content comparable to an expansion pack.

I'm of two minds on this issue. On one hand, AAA game prices weren't keeping up with inflation from just a pure dollar valuation perspective, so the natural consequence was to shrink the base game and sell more DLC. On the other hand, if you look at the size of these dev teams and expenses, the cost of AAA development appears excessive. Right now, I think it's inarguable that indies provide more value per dollar on their games. AAA studios need to adjust to this, or they will price themselves out of existence. Indies will only get more capable as AI augments their small and nimble dev teams.

 

[Crashdummy]

I'm of two minds on this issue. On one hand, AAA game prices weren't keeping up with inflation from just a pure dollar valuation perspective, so the natural consequence was to shrink the base game and sell more DLC. On the other hand, if you look at the size of these dev teams and expenses, the cost of AAA development appears excessive. Right now, I think it's inarguable that indies provide more value per dollar on their games. AAA studios need to adjust to this, or they will price themselves out of existence. Indies will only get more capable as AI augments their small and nimble dev teams.

Actually games were keeping up with inflation, just that it started way before inflation hits

When games went from physical copies to digital ones, they should have gotten a price reduction, which in AAA games never happened. That reduction was extra profit companies were having, and inlflation just chipped away form that extra profit

Games like BG3, KCD2 and Expedition 33 are pushing the price down though, or at least preventing from rising even more

Civ 7 price doesnt make any sense IMHO and just profits on our attachment to the franchise (and i say this as someone who bought the Founders edition without thought because Firaxis always delivered, oh boy that was a mistake)

 

[Leucarum]

On paper Civ7 did add a hell of a lot to the series so I can see where the price comes from.

I think it's the new features which cause issues.

Late Game being uninteresting was less of a problem when it wasn't the focus of 1/3 of the game. Civ7 was trying to fix a long standing problem of late-game boredom but ended up locking features and gameplay into a section of the game with a very lackluster gameplay loop.

And Civ Switching in particular is brutal for the value of Civs, each one feels like it's worth 1/3 as much when it probably costs just as much to make each...

 

[stealth_nsk]

Just compare two things:

1. DLC model together with discounts allows companies to segment customers from premium (buying everything on release) to long tail, thus maximizing the game profits.
2. There are still no superprofits, the games have roughly the same profit expectations as any other investment.

In general this means, that developing game development is so expensive nowadays, that in most cases it's impossible to make modern game without DLC model, it just won't pay off.

P.S. Sure, there are exceptions, for example Larian abused their indie image to sell BG3 through "early access" model to both get money much earlier (in business money have percentage growth on them, so the earlier you get paid, the more value those money have) and avoid negativity from incomplete game. Together with strong brands (BG and D&D) behind, they were able to gather a lot of money from a game which was relatively cheap in production.

 

[Siptah]

Games like BG3, KCD2 and Expedition 33 are pushing the price down though, or at least preventing from rising even more

Civ 7 price doesnt make any sense IMHO

Huh? BG3, KCD2, and civ 7 all have the same release price for the base game, and they all help to make this price the „new normal“. If the price differs for you, that may be a currency conversion or regional pricing thing. They sit at what I would call the current slightly expensive titles (70€ on Steam, 60€ on other legal platforms), while Expedition 33 can be considered medium at 50€, and something like Mario Kart World (80€ digital) as expensive (but consoles are often more expensive anyway, so it‘s hard to compare - I think I also paid more for KCD2 on PS5 than I would have on Steam).

 

[notNamed]

I'm of two minds on this issue. On one hand, AAA game prices weren't keeping up with inflation from just a pure dollar valuation perspective, so the natural consequence was to shrink the base game and sell more DLC. On the other hand, if you look at the size of these dev teams and expenses, the cost of AAA development appears excessive.

You have the causation backwards.
Game budgets started skyrocketing because their profits are skyrocketing. The more a game makes, the bigger budget it is given to work with next.
That's why GTA 6 costs more than Burj Khalifa. Because GTA 5 brought in some $10billion dollars for the company. Not because making an open world game set in an American city for Xbox Series S costs more than the biggest skyscraper in existence.

Budgets evolve based on how much your game makes and how much of a surefire hit your next one will be. Not on the price of goddamn barrels of oil. That's nonsense you hear from MBA retards who think they're selling Tetris machines. Their "CEO for Dummies" entry level course textbook said to increase prices because you can't magic in the wood and plastic for cheaper so you have to include inflation of material costs year over year. But that's not how an infinite, instant and expenseless product like a software video game license works.

 

[uppi]

I'm of two minds on this issue. On one hand, AAA game prices weren't keeping up with inflation from just a pure dollar valuation perspective, so the natural consequence was to shrink the base game and sell more DLC. On the other hand, if you look at the size of these dev teams and expenses, the cost of AAA development appears excessive. Right now, I think it's inarguable that indies provide more value per dollar on their games. AAA studios need to adjust to this, or they will price themselves out of existence. Indies will only get more capable as AI augments their small and nimble dev teams.

The consequence of AAA studios downsizing would be that they would not be making AAA games any more. And then they would not only more directly compete with indie studios, but also with their own existing AAA games. Why would people pay for a hypothetical Civ 8, which had worse graphics, less music, no leader lines, less civilizations, less of anything really than Civ 6 and on top of that was more expensive?

 

[Dhomochevsky]

Civ VI, the whole shebang, is on sale for about $20.

I would wait 9 years for that CIV VII discount, maybe then it will be worth buying.

 

[AD1730]

Why would people pay for a hypothetical Civ 8, which had worse graphics, less music, no leader lines, less civilizations, less of anything really than Civ 6 and on top of that was more expensive?

Well, they basically tried that with Civ 7, and we’ve seen how that’s gone.

Bethesda grew massively from Skyrim onwards. Has that made their games better?

I do not believe that streamlining necessarily leads to lower quality. We have seen that bloat often leads to disjointed development and poor results.

Your mindset will lead AAA gaming to the same place as modern cinema: a decreasingly relevant medium with ballooning costs and a shrinking audience, running off the fumes of previous generations.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I'm of two minds on this issue. On one hand, AAA game prices weren't keeping up with inflation from just a pure dollar valuation perspective, so the natural consequence was to shrink the base game and sell more DLC. On the other hand, if you look at the size of these dev teams and expenses, the cost of AAA development appears excessive. Right now, I think it's inarguable that indies provide more value per dollar on their games. AAA studios need to adjust to this, or they will price themselves out of existence. Indies will only get more capable as AI augments their small and nimble dev teams.

I think “The beaurocracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding beaurocracy” effect may be a factor here.

It is absolutly imarguable, although I’m sure pro corporate types will try, that you are not getting value for money. Just looking at the progression for Halo. Costs are ballooning, and both the quality and amount of content decreases

 

[uppi]

Well, they basically tried that with Civ 7, and we’ve seen how that’s gone.

Bethesda grew massively from Skyrim onwards. Has that made their games better?

I do not believe that streamlining necessarily leads to lower quality. We have seen that bloat often leads to disjointed development and poor results.

Your mindset will lead AAA gaming to the same place as modern cinema: a decreasingly relevant medium with ballooning costs and a shrinking audience, running off the fumes of previous generations.

Having been on the receiving end of corporate streamlining a few times to often, I can absolutely promise you that streamlining will compromise quality. Not because there is not enough bloat to cut away, but because it is virtually impossible to cut away without compromising quality.

A AAA studio is never going to be competitive in the $15-indie-game market, no matter what they do. And those are probably a threat to the AAA-game market. But as a AAA studio you have to keep trying, because the other option would be dissolving.

And talking about Civ: it is not like any of the competitors managed to capture the market despite the obviously lower budget.