Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Kev1916]

That's subjective. Civ VI was not receiving good reviews after its initial release, that's why it fell to a rating of mixed on Steam and has less players than V did for quite a long time.

Aye it Ever have less players than Civ 4

 

[Kev1916]

That's your opinion.

The reality is that Civ VI trailed Civ V in player count for more than 1.5 years, except a spike near release and a spike near the release of the first expansion.

Dont back down , double down, it was your post 3728 which started the dance of accusation of "nonsense posts.............

For the those trying to catch up -

Continues to lag Civ 5 consistently.

Kwami -

"It's almost like having 13 years and multiple really great sales gives V an advantage over a game that's only been out for a few months...

 

[misesfan]

That's your opinion.

And the opinion of more than half of the suckers who bought this terrible game (admittedly, myself included). I refer you to the Steam store page for Civ 7:

 

[stealth_nsk]

What's your point caller ?

Take your time, slowly read a few post's Im sure the penny will drop if no you craic on with your nonsense post's

For a wee hand to quote - "It's almost like having 13 years and multiple really great sales gives V an advantage over a game that's only been out for a few months..."

And happy to await any reference to Civ SIX having just "15-20% of the current daily player count " of the previous two versions.

None of this have anything to do with the original post I replied to. There was a comparison between old and new games at the same moment of time, which doesn't make sense.

 

[j51]

This thread sucks.

 

[Kev1916]

None of this have anything to do with the original post I replied to. There was a comparison between old and new games at the same moment of time, which doesn't make sense.

Fair enough , if your not willing to admit your wrong and take the time to back read a few post's you enjoy your night -

Also for the record at no time did the player count on my post you so rudely quoted had Warhammer 3 fall below WH II let alone WH 1 rofl

 

[j51]

Let’s take a step back and think about what we’re arguing about here: the player retention patterns of computer games for strategy nerds.

 

[Siptah]

Let’s take a step back and think about what we’re arguing about here: the player retention patterns of computer games for strategy nerds.

Gives a really new angle to Ed's signature "Stay civilized", right?

I'm not sure I agree on the "strategy nerds" though. Civ has tried to be something else since at least, well, civ 2? And this may be a big part of the perceived problem.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

That's your opinion.

The reality is that Civ VI trailed Civ V in player count for more than 1.5 years, except a spike near release and a spike near the release of the first expansion.

That’s true - and despite that - still had more than double the playerbase of 7 at that low

 

[Siptah]

That’s true - and despite that - still had more than double the playerbase of 7 at that low

Which is a fair criticism of civ 7's performance. I still think it's difficult to compare the exact numbers, as, well civ 6 exists and is clearly civ 7s strongest competitor. And 7 is competing against 5 and 6, which are played a lot, before and after civ 7 came out. 6 had one competitor less.

The more sad picture is that the total numbers of people that play a civ game has sunk from before civ 7's release.

 

[Core Imposter]

Which is a fair criticism of civ 7's performance. I still think it's difficult to compare the exact numbers, as, well civ 6 exists and is clearly civ 7s strongest competitor. And 7 is competing against 5 and 6, which are played a lot, before and after civ 7 came out. 6 had one competitor less.

The more sad picture is that the total numbers of people that play a civ game has sunk from before civ 7's release.

Ah, don't despair. Civ IV players are still out there. Even though some have graduated to the map in the sky I suspect that there are at least ten thousand concurrent Civ IV players daily. That ought to make up the difference.

 

[Kwami]

That’s true - and despite that - still had more than double the playerbase of 7 at that low

Well, maybe. But remember that Civ VI was initially only available on Steam. VII is available on Epic and on consoles, too.

 

[AddAdamSmith]

This thread sucks.

On the contrary, this is tremendous content. The only other time we get this much posting over a few percentage point changes on a plot is during election season for Americans.

 

[Xur]

It's probably better to not engage with the trolls, as the thread is just gonna get locked at this rate.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Undeniable facts are that this game is way overpriced.
They should cut the price to $19,90 to reflect on the mobile quality of the product. Sure, some Steam players pay anything, but that is not the norm on educated players around the world.

It should be made free entirely in about 6 months from now. By the time the first, real expansion comes out, which should include ALL DLCs that came out untill then. Sell the expansion for 19.99, and hope people would actually first of all install the base game and play it... then hope the expansion sales well.
I wouldn't install the game if it was free right now.

I would like the game to transition to isometric graphics with a click.
This way it could be played even on potato smartphones, and kids, 95% of them plays on smartphones.
Give up the 1UPT and get back to SOD once and for all. Commanders and 1uPT didn't work.
Revert the random Leaders and have Classical Leaders associations again as for zero civ switching, but maybe
have later ages civilization pop in at later stages of the game instead, from a group of indipendent nations for example, thus preserving some of the Ages switching mechanic, but completely overhauled to what the normal gamers expects from a Civ game.

And the next vision they have, let the, try it it on a handheld first.
Let us PC players plays the way we are accostomed to.
The alternative is simple.
Abandon PC players space and start making games for kids that sells for 1$.
But they can't expect us to plays 1$ games on our PCs anymore.

 

[aelf]

That being said, Civ 7 breaks both of the important bits of that sentence. I understand at first some people might think civ switching could be understood as an evolution of a civ, at this point i think we can all agree that isnt the case, at least for a big portion of the playerbase

Yes, now you think that way. You're sure because you have the benefit of hindsight. But when the decision was made, how would you find out? Focus groups? How do get an accurate representation of your 2024/2025 customer base at that point? Maybe they did do focus groups. Do large surveys? Again, getting a representative sample can be tricky.

These are definitely tools that someone making product decisions can use, but they don't guarantee success. At some point, you probably have to take risks. And, like I've said before, if you asked people before the invention of automobiles, they might ask for a faster horse. But a market leader breeding faster horses when the automobile came onto the market would've been in danger. So asking customers what they want is just one source of information that might not necessarily help you make the right moves.

 

[Leucarum]

Gotta say, if people haven't seen it. Boesthius' video critiquing 7 seems almost bang on the money. I don't agree that the civs feel too same-y... (Or at least Antiquity feels like it has decent variety of game styles, I'm still enjoying playing that age). But the critique of wanting to get players to finish games... and the consequences of designing the game around that feels spot on.

 

[Core Imposter]

It's probably better to not engage with the trolls, as the thread is just gonna get locked at this rate.

Yeah, but don't you think they ought to have the right to defend Civ7 somewhere?

 

[Xur]

Yeah, but don't you think they ought to have the right to defend Civ7 somewhere?

Sure, but they feed on us taking the bait. I had to mute a few of them to be honest.

 

[Kumbao]

Yes, now you think that way. You're sure because you have the benefit of hindsight. But when the decision was made, how would you find out? Focus groups? How do get an accurate representation of your 2024/2025 customer base at that point? Maybe they did do focus groups. Do large surveys? Again, getting a representative sample can be tricky.

These are definitely tools that someone making product decisions can use, but they don't guarantee success. At some point, you probably have to take risks. And, like I've said before, if you asked people before the invention of automobiles, they might ask for a faster horse. But a market leader breeding faster horses when the automobile came onto the market would've been in danger. So asking customers what they want is just one source of information that might not necessarily help you make the right moves.

I was very critical about the civ switching and the ages system from the beginning. From the first announcement I knew that I dont want to play this game. And I cannot imagine that I'm alone with that. Even within Firaxis there must have been people who said "Ed, these are bad ideas. We will alienate our fanbase". But Ed and the higher ups didnt listen. Ed, because he fell in love with his vision. And the highe ups, because they knew that this system means that they can produce an infinite number of DLCs with minimum effort (no doubt that is how they pitched their idea in the first place). But again, I doubt that these changes to the core franchise were made without resistance.