Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

And perhaps it was a test to see how this DLC model would perform for VII?

Clearly decoupling leaders from civs is foundational to VII and it does provide a new opportunity for DLC from the start.

It could have been. That doesn't mean the gameplay of Civ VII was built to encourage poor DLC pricing, or that they had to steer away from the gameplay of VI to change up the DLC formula.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

There would be something stopping them. They couldn't call 1/3 of a civ a civ!*

Also, they couldn't extract money in the same way from a person who wants to play, through the whole game, a particular this-world civilization: by putting three chunks of it in three separate DLCs.

What they are likely to find, probably are presently finding, is that this is a dud of a pricing strategy because potential customers 1) see through it and 2) resent it.

Building resentment in your customer base is not a good way to make sales.

(Again that is IF the tail wagged the dog, which I'm not sure I believe. I think the game was mostly developed in good faith; I believe the designers convinced themselves that ages and civ switching would make for a fun game.** But, for all that, I'm sure there was also a meeting b/w the uppity-ups at Firaxis and the uppity-ups at 2K where someone said "and this will also lend itself to packaging civlets*** as DLC content")

*it's "shrinkflation." I buy K-pods for the office coffee-maker, but it's only about once a month that I need an extra cup of coffee, so it's been a year since I bought a multipack. When I brought the new multi-pack out to the office, I noticed it was ten pods as opposed to the earlier 12 pods. They now make an entity that plays for 1/3 of the game, but still call it a "Civ." If my K-pods had dropped from 12 to 4, I would have been way more disappointed/skeptical/angry.

**I think they thought that trying out different leader+civ combos (trying to find which combination of all those perks was most OP) would be engaging to players.

***except they didn't say "civlets" (because I hadn't made it happen yet).

They aren't "1/3 of a civ", "civlets", "mini-civs" or any other phrase used to discredit Civilizations in Civ VII. They have more content to them than Civs in other games.

Let's compare America in Civ VI to America in Civ VII.

America in Civ VI: 1 unique military unit, 1 unique infrastructure
America in Civ VII: 1 unique military unit, 1 unique civilian unit, 3 unique infrastructure, unique Civic tree, 3 unique Traditions

Just because you can only play them in one Age for now, doesn't mean you should refer to them as being inferior to normal Civs in other games. If anything, they are superior. They have more about them. They aren't 1/3 of a Civ just because you can only play them in 1/3 of the game.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

That to me isn't what I think of when someone says "decoupling leaders from civs".
Those leaders in the Leaders pass were being sold, or given out for free, for previously released civs. Ludwig II was still only playable with Germany. Ada Lovelace on the other hand was released alongside Great Britain, but is still decoupled because she doesn't have to lead Great Britian, despite being heavily associated with them.

Decoupling probably isn't the right term for what I said. The point is they already sold Leaders by themselves in Civ VI, separate to selling them with a Civilization.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

My prediction for the Civ 7 peak player count for September is 11.95k. I think that the release of the second mini-collection will give a small boost to player numbers.

I think it will surpass 12,000 if the update is bigger one like 1.2.2.
1.2.3 & 1.2.4 have both been on the smaller side, and they said map generation improvements will be coming, so hoping for a big one.

 

[Gori the Grey]

They aren't 1/3 of a Civ just because you can only play them in 1/3 of the game.

Other players experience it differently than you do.

I myself have acknowledged that they put a lot of work into them. More is not always better, though, and for some players, this is a case of that, for reasons that I explained.

One reason they feel to some players like a third of a civ is that some players like to play one particular this-world civilization. If Firaxis makes that possible for more cases than China and India over time, but spreads the chunks out over separate DLCs, then those players will very much feel as though each of the civlets making up that this-world is a 1/3 of a civ, because they bought each one of them separately before they could play the way they wanted to.

In fact, my own first bit of advice to the Director of Product would be to encourage the developers to create as many as possible historical progressions like China and India, then sell clusters of them such that, in a single DLC, players get the other two chunks that are not in the base game.

If instead they offer the two parts that would flesh out a particular RL progression in separate DLCs, I will join the more cynical voices here in thinking the whole thing was designed to extract the most money possible from the player base.

 

[queenpea]

It could have been. That doesn't mean the gameplay of Civ VII was built to encourage poor DLC pricing, or that they had to steer away from the gameplay of VI to change up the DLC formula.

This is not what I claimed. I simply said there are more units to sell, which is objectively true.

 

[queenpea]

Just because you can only play them in one Age for now, doesn't mean you should refer to them as being inferior to normal Civs in other games. If anything, they are superior. They have more about them. They aren't 1/3 of a Civ just because you can only play them in 1/3 of the game.

I wish that were true, but that’s not at all how I feel when I play VII.

Like the game itself, I find the Antiquity civs to be the most fun to play, then followed by Exploration, with the Modern civs being the least interesting. As the game goes on, I find the civ to become more diluted in terms of its identity. And while the unique units and buildings are nice, I find that most of the civs seem to play the same, regardless of their stacked modifiers.

If more civs had unique victory paths, like Mongolia, this might help with civ identity but also better understanding your rivals.

Lastly, I will add, that I have always been a France player, so not being able to start as France on turn 1 has been dissatisfying to me personally as a player. I’ve never played a late start in Civ and am less likely to try it out now more than ever considering the current state of the Modern age.

 

[Gorbles]

None of these points invalidate my argument that there is a small population of very active users who consistently downvote everything negative.

And? There are people who do the opposite.

How do we measure that? Should we measure that? Is it actually important, or is the act of letting people express their opinions on their platform of choice inherently defensible?

 

[aieeegrunt]

Other players experience it differently than you do.

I myself have acknowledged that they put a lot of work into them. More is not always better, though, and for some players, this is a case of that, for reasons that I explained.

One reason they feel to some players like a third of a civ is that some players like to play one particular this-world civilization. If Firaxis makes that possible for more cases than China and India over time, but spreads the chunks out over separate DLCs, then those players will very much feel as though each of the civlets making up that this-world is a 1/3 of a civ, because they bought each one of them separately before they could play the way they wanted to.

In fact, my own first bit of advice to the Director of Product would be to encourage the developers to create as many as possible historical progressions like China and India, then sell clusters of them such that, in a single DLC, players get the other two chunks that are not in the base game.

If instead they offer the two parts that would flesh out a particular RL progression in separate DLCs, I will join the more cynical voices here in thinking the whole thing was designed to extract the most money possible from the player base.

At this point you might as well just have civs spanning all three eras

 

[Leucarum]

I do like the Civlet name! I'm in favour of making Civlet happen.

Firaxis definitely put a lot more work into them than you would expect but honestly the way they come accross is a little like a starter without the rest of the meal.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

None of these points invalidate my argument that there is a small population of very active users who consistently downvote everything negative. What I'm saying makes perfect sense. You can't just say, "That makes no sense," as an argument with no backing against a perfectly cogent and reasonable, easily observed interpretation of a phenomenon.

Also, my contention is nothing like the console players argument. It's as if you're just saying, "Well your argument is bad too."

You're talking like you know, when you don't. You don't know if there is "a small population of very active users who consistently downvote everything negative". You don't know that there is a large majority of users who dislike VII who only occasionally post or comment.

 

[Xur]

You're talking like you know, when you don't. You don't know if there is "a small population of very active users who consistently downvote everything negative". You don't know that there is a large majority of users who dislike VII who only occasionally post or comment.

Can you say the opposite of that with a straight face? There’s not a group of people downvoting negative posts? There is actually a majority of users who love civ7? What are you smoking?

 

[Krikkit1]

Can you say the opposite of that with a straight face? There’s not a group of people downvoting negative posts? There is actually a majority of users who love civ7? What are you smoking?

A large number* of players (love/hate) the game. Only a small number of them comment. On (online forum) a bunch of people that disagree with them vote them down.

*Majority is more specific but doesn’t matter for the point made…which is that online forums are a terrible place to get a solid understanding of what people want/think about a controversial issue.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

Can you say the opposite of that with a straight face? There’s not a group of people downvoting negative posts? There is actually a majority of users who love civ7? What are you smoking?

Did I claim either of those things? No. Questioning something which was never said.

 

[Crashdummy]

Poor design of the game to you. If Civ VII was like Civ VI with no Ages or Civ switching, there would be no stopping them from releasing similar bad DLC pricing. The game design has not encouraged bad DLC pricing.

Of course there would. The point here is that they can sell you the same Civlet, twice. We all know there are Civs more popuolar than others. Being able to sell Great Britain, twice, is a big upside over having to sell you a Civ like Hawaii (or similar).

Breaking a Civilization into third not only makes the Civlet cheaper to make, it also enables you to sell popular Civlets more than once

 

[Kwami]

Of course there would. The point here is that they can sell you the same Civlet, twice. We all know there are Civs more popuolar than others. Being able to sell Great Britain, twice, is a big upside over having to sell you a Civ like Hawaii (or similar).

Breaking a Civilization into third not only makes the Civlet cheaper to make, it also enables you to sell popular Civlets more than once

Thus far, they have not sold us anything twice. Nor have they indicated any plan to do so. There's no need to spread conspiracy nonsense like that.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think it will surpass 12,000 if the update is bigger one like 1.2.2.
1.2.3 & 1.2.4 have both been on the smaller side, and they said map generation improvements will be coming, so hoping for a big one.

It will be an interesting gauge of the new influx of players and their engagement with the games mets information. It feels like we're down to a core player base which are hyper switched on the changes being made and are either regularly playing, or regularly coming back to see what the changes are like.

We've have a relatively larger drop off this weekend from last weekend than in other comparative weekends in the last few months, so it will be interesting to see whether that's new people dropping off, or new people who are engaged and who might pick in back up more regularly after updates

I personally think you are right on the numbers, as the release of the new civlets with the second part of right to rule is likely to be a draw to players who bought the founders edition to see there moneys worth

 

[Smegger213]

Civ 7 has stuck at between about 8000 and 10000 players since about the middle of May. I don't think this will change much. Despite any patches or DLC being released.

 

[Kev1916]

I do like the Civlet name! I'm in favour of making Civlet happen.

Firaxis definitely put a lot more work into them than you would expect but honestly the way they come accross is a little like a starter without the rest of the meal.

Civlet is actually worse , maybe your not that "Hungary" to start with and just want the main.

What do you mean ! I cant have my choice first , no Sir you have to have two min Civlets to start with bread and a side of mussels .

 

[Kev1916]

Of course there would. The point here is that they can sell you the same Civlet, twice. We all know there are Civs more popuolar than others. Being able to sell Great Britain, twice, is a big upside over having to sell you a Civ like Hawaii (or similar).

Breaking a Civilization into third not only makes the Civlet cheaper to make, it also enables you to sell popular Civlets more than once

Leaders are the real cash transactions , they can pump those out faster than skins in Fortnite