Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[stealth_nsk]

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

Starfield was a failed experiment, but there's no progress without experimenting.

While it's clearly possible to make worse game with more resources, it's much less possible to do better game with less resources.

We've seen a lot of "civilization killers" and no one was able to get close to Civ6.

 

[itix]

We've seen a lot of "civilization killers" and no one was able to get close to Civ6.

Not even after a few patches and expansions?

 

[AD1730]

Not even after a few patches and expansions?

What's funny is that the two of the failed Civ killers implemented civ switching or ages.

 

[Crashdummy]

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).

No they dont. BG3 did have a similar price (60 vs 70) but then every content they added after was free, so the 60 should be compared to the 120 price

KDC2 was cheaper

Nintendo pricing is just stupid IMHO

 

[MrCynical]

I've never really understood why they went with civ switching given it was the single biggest problem identified in the Humankind reviews, and a major reason it flopped so hard. Granted, not the only reason that happened, but it still showed up the ton of issues that kind of switching created, so it's a baffling decision unless they'd already got so far in developing the game it was too late to change it when Humankind sank without trace. Only a fool doesn't learn from other people's mistakes.

The sale brings it down to £42 for the standard version, which I think is the first time I've seen Civ VII at a price I'll consider, but it's still only a maybe from what I've read about the game. And the growing number of different editions and individually sold leaders is off-putting. Civ VI got pretty bad with that kind of stuff towards the end. Still, at least it's a more credible price than it was at launch. I had a look around release time, and it was something like £90 just for the base game? And the "deluxe edition" at about £120? It was enough that I noped straight out of there, and it's no surprise sales are disappointing with that kind of price tag. And all the microtransaction stuff encourages leaving it to one side until there's decent "complete" version at a discount.

 

[GeneralZift]

I've never really understood why they went with civ switching given it was the single biggest problem identified in the Humankind reviews, and a major reason it flopped so hard. Granted, not the only reason that happened, but it still showed up the ton of issues that kind of switching created, so it's a baffling decision unless they'd already got so far in developing the game it was too late to change it when Humankind sank without trace. Only a fool doesn't learn from other people's mistakes.

It's because, as far as I know, they came up with this solution simultaneously. Then by the time Humankind came out, Civ7 was already halfway through development, as I understand it.
So they're essentially out of luck, in terms of pivoting the Titanic so to speak.
You can also tell that they expected some backlash at least, because of how careful they were in the first announcement material, sort of avoiding specificity. That might just be how I remember it though.

 

[Gorbles]

When games went from physical copies to digital ones, they should have gotten a price reduction, which in AAA games never happened.

Also incorrect. Digital storage, cloud solutions . . . these things also cost money.

 

[King Flevance]

My biggest issue with the franchise is that every iteration since 4 seems like it was "built from scratch". Civ 4 felt like a spiritual successor to the first 3. 5 felt nothing like any civ before it to me. 6 felt a little bit like 3 and 5 had a baby but Eurekas just felt like Civ Rev for me. Now 7 feels nothing like its predecessors. Civ is starting to feel like the Final Fantasy series for me. "Oh, did you really like the new things we implemented? Cool, we are doing a brand new design next game." I don't know where this 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 game design mantra came from but I don't think that is even loosely adhered to. It just sounds good.

I actually like a lot about Civ 7, but I don't like that I can't see a trending gradual evolution in the series. Another example that comes to mind is the Anno series. A while back, if you asked any fan what their top 3 games of the Anno series was, it was very random what response you would get. Someone might share my favorite of the series and then put my least favorite as their #2 spot. Some would put my least 3 favorite titles as their top 3. There was no consistent game entry making it into most people's top 3 lists. No one even remotely saw eye to eye on the best entry of the series. And it wasn't because we love them all. Your least favorite, you probably refuse to even play. It is a drastic fluctuation. They couldn't be more scattered among the fanbase. Then Anno 1800 came out. Now, Anno 1800 is #1 on everyone's list and then, after that, it is a random mess again. It would make sense for Ubisoft to take note of this and set it as the trend within the community. Innovate, but make sure you don't innovate your success away with your audience or polarize it. If you want to make money, provide something the audience wants and maybe something new on the side.

I know Civ releases have a tradition of being kind of divisive. But Anno seems to be a good example of how a divided fanbase can rally behind a good design that hits all the marks. To me it seems clear that Civ 7 is probably not that design, but I got lucky and don't hate it. But I do really wish the designs didn't change so much so fast. It would be nice to see some of these features that fly by in one entry be revisted with a different format and perhaps refine the mechanic. It would really be nice if governments would stay a bit more consistent.

 

[GeneralZift]

We've seen a lot of "civilization killers" and no one was able to get close to Civ6.

What I find funny, and this may be only my personal opinion, is that Civ6 isn't even that good and it's leading the 4X market by storm.
And you know, subjectively for certain players, it's a great entry (maybe the best), and it's a good landing zone for newcomers.

But I want to approach it objectively here - and I'm using the phrase objectively carefully.
I think most of us can imagine a Civ game that could be even better than Civ6.
It is entirely possible for a 4X game to be higher quality.

IF you had a flawless art style, and combined it with an appropriately strong AI (like Old World).
And it had less tedium in terms of the Religious system.
Perhaps a more intricate Government system. Maybe more impactful Spies. Better balance. More Leader animations and voice lines.

There's space for expansion here, which you might usually label as points for improvement.
Typically, competition for a game aims to 'steal' these points to become a better game in the eyes of the general audience.

But because competition for 4X is sparse, and making a 4X from scratch is expensive and risky, you won't find any worthy challengers for the throne.
This also avoids putting too much pressure on Civ titles to strictly improve between iteration.

 

[Xur]

I've probably said it before, but I really don't think price was much of an obstacle. Civ games require a lot of time and time is limited. If civ7 was 5€, I would still not waste my time on it. Price is the last hurdle that a potential customer has to jump. If gameplay stops the customer long before the last hurdle, then price is irrelevant. The problem is gameplay. I'm sure that Firaxis can identify the gameplay problem, but their "cures"/solutions are always worse than the disease. Firaxis correctly identified the things I hated about civ 5 and civ6 - their solutions are just horrible and shallow. It gradually became worse and worse games. Disabling core game features is not a viable solution.

If I thought Firaxis could turn the ship around and get a good game some time in a year or two, then I might buy it on discount. But I don't even think they can fix it - or plan to fix it. If they wanted to fix eras and civ swapping, then they would have said something about it by now.

 

[Pfeffersack]

(...) If they wanted to fix eras and civ swapping, then they would have said something about it by now.

Well, they talked about smoothing era transitions and also (wordly citation from the last updates intro text) about how players connect with their civ across history. And that the last update was only the start... My feeling is that eras will stay, but the transition process will see further adjustment. And for civ switching...it will surely not be ripped out in sense of being gone...but already two mods show how relatively easy it is to provide something like a "classic"mode. Given how much the civ switching divides the community (see this poll thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/whats-your-opinion-on-civ-switching.699056/ ) and that the devs already discovered the "making controversial stuff optional"-solution, I would not really surprised if we end up sooner or later with an official "classic mode" where you can continue with your initial civ.

 

[Haig]

I think Civ VII feels alien to some people because it made tons of changes to the mechanics of previous couple games, not just the civ switching and ages.

Builders are gone

Cities and towns

Commanders

Navigable rivers

No resource trading with leaders

No strategic resources required for units

Ships get damage from deep sea

Treasure fleets

Leaders have no backround art and are facing each other

I feel that without ages and civ switching there would have been enough new stuff for a new Civilization title and most of it good.

 

[The Civs 6]

I think this is another issue. Perhaps some angst about Civ 7 comes because it is right on the heels of super meh Civ 6. When you add in the highly polarizing Civ 5 - you have not had a homerun in almost (over?) 20 years. Can we honestly say that any of these games are strictly an improvement on 4? (by contrast 4 was absolutely better than 3; 2 was absolutely better than 1...). I find 4 has far more replayability than 5 or 6.

There is a trend - that the civ series is getting worse. How bad will 8 be? If it ever happens.

 

[Crashdummy]

I've probably said it before, but I really don't think price was much of an obstacle. Civ games require a lot of time and time is limited. If civ7 was 5€, I would still not waste my time on it. Price is the last hurdle that a potential customer has to jump. If gameplay stops the customer long before the last hurdle, then price is irrelevant. The problem is gameplay. I'm sure that Firaxis can identify the gameplay problem, but their "cures"/solutions are always worse than the disease. Firaxis correctly identified the things I hated about civ 5 and civ6 - their solutions are just horrible and shallow. It gradually became worse and worse games. Disabling core game features is not a viable solution.

If I thought Firaxis could turn the ship around and get a good game some time in a year or two, then I might buy it on discount. But I don't even think they can fix it - or plan to fix it. If they wanted to fix eras and civ swapping, then they would have said something about it by now.

I agree price isnt the main issue, and these sales prove it, we just got a 30% sale and player count couldnt even reach 11k

That being said, there might be a small amount of players that do get left out by price

 

[Siptah]

Sales are at 16.9k now for this week. Probably the highest it was since the first three weeks after release.

 

[socratic]

I think this is another issue. Perhaps some angst about Civ 7 comes because it is right on the heels of super meh Civ 6. When you add in the highly polarizing Civ 5 - you have not had a homerun in almost (over?) 20 years. Can we honestly say that any of these games are strictly an improvement on 4? (by contrast 4 was absolutely better than 3; 2 was absolutely better than 1...). I find 4 has far more replayability than 5 or 6.

There is a trend - that the civ series is getting worse. How bad will 8 be? If it ever happens.

By just about every objective metric Civ 5 and 6 are massive highs for the franchise. Not saying that you have to enjoy those games, if you didn't vibe with the direction they went for that's fine. But saying the franchise or game quality has been in decline 20 years is just not true.

 

[King Flevance]

I think this is another issue. Perhaps some angst about Civ 7 comes because it is right on the heels of super meh Civ 6. When you add in the highly polarizing Civ 5 - you have not had a homerun in almost (over?) 20 years. Can we honestly say that any of these games are strictly an improvement on 4? (by contrast 4 was absolutely better than 3; 2 was absolutely better than 1...). I find 4 has far more replayability than 5 or 6.

There is a trend - that the civ series is getting worse. How bad will 8 be? If it ever happens.

I actually thought C3C was better than 4 when 4 first came out. I actually skipped the Warlords expansion because, while vassals interested me, I had quite a few issues with the current state of the game when Warlords released. Plus, I remember Firaxis putting some kind of a balance issue people had been discussing behind the expansion and not patching it into the base game, it may have been the axe/chariot counter, but I don't remember. It wasn't until Beyond the Sword that I was all in, which was an expansion that heavily focused on the late game. Corporations were fun plus I got Warlords + BTS all at once. I think I have spent close to $500 on Civ 4 purchases and it had no DLC. Civ 4 is still leaps and bounds ahead of any other release for me for the best Civ game, especially when you add in the mods. It is not even a contest and I agree about its replayability. I am hoping 7 goes down this road where after the final expansion, I love it. But I will always love 4 no matter what.

Oddly enough Civ sales are getting better, I think. Plus, 5 and 6 have made it popular enough that random people have actually heard of the franchise now when I ask. When people find out I am a 'gamer' they immediately ask what I play and I ask if they have heard of Civilization, there is about a 60% chance they will say "Yes" now. That used to always be "No" and I would have to briefly summarize what the game is. I don't play shooters or MOBAs or really anything in the mass pop culture other than an occasional RPG. Strategy is still a niche genre but good old Civ now has notoriety within pop culture, though it is probably just a blip.

I don't see a trend other than the "uniqueness" of each Civ is getting heavier and heavier and now we are even having leaders have uniqueness and mix/matching the two so that it is sdtarting to feel like "let's make a million tiny things for the player to track about their civ to add flavor, but keep the core of the game generic and bland". I liked the idea of civics from 4 and feel it could be evolved. I like the government system in 6 but felt it was too easy to swap policies and actually feel like 7's is a super boring simplistic (worse) version of 6's. Civ 7's core mechanics (Civ uniques aside) have some interesting ideas but they all mostly feel generic and bare bones.

 

[The Civs 6]

By just about every objective metric Civ 5 and 6 are massive highs for the franchise. Not saying that you have to enjoy those games, if you didn't vibe with the direction they went for that's fine. But saying the franchise or game quality has been in decline 20 years is just not true.

Have you ever played Civ 6 past the mid game?

 

[Leucarum]

Have you ever played Civ 6 past the mid game?

It's not great... But unfortunately I do think it's better than Civ 7's Modern era...

 

[DennisCastro]

I’ve recently gone back to V, with Vox Populi specifically. Every once and a while there are fan translations or mods that are just so perfect that it puts the lie to the idea that game developers care about anything other than doing the bare minimum to get their paycheck.

I’d love to hear other opinion, but VP makes civ v a high point in the series along with C3C and IV. And it was done with balance changes, tweaks to AI, and some neat hacks. The amount of care put into it is likely beyond anything Firaxis could do. I understand that it may not be for everyone, but it goes to show what careful attention and passion can produce. I have no doubt that civ 7 could likely be made good if tools were available and it was popular enough to get a sizable modding community. Alas that will not happen. Civ is dead. We should all be happy that we have 6 other entries in the series that collectively should be replayable enough for a lifetime.