Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[stealth_nsk]

I've phrased it differently before. If we look at the rule of 1/3 then it's the 1/3 which was improved which really shines in Civ7. Removing builders, army commanders, towns/cities, influence... They are amazing additions, and that's what stops me going back to Civ6.

Civ7 has fallen down on its 1/3 new, even though it took its swings for good reasons, it missed a lot of the balls and is struggling to pick up the pieces... Not least because there is no uniform opinon on which balls were misses... And maybe it doesn't matter which since the new systems are so tightly intertwined that if any of them is a failure point for someone, then they all are...

In any case, each Civilization game need a core new concept to be built about, compared to 1UpT of Civ5 or unstacking cities in Civ6. Ages were a risky shot, but they clearly are that kind of feature and they were aiming to solve real problems of the game. So, I applaud Firaxis for their try, even though the shot is partly missed.

I also think that if Civ7 was allowed to be released in a more polished state, we'd have different narrative. Just a reminder - Civ7 held a record presales, despite age and civilization switch being advertised and explained in details since announcement. That means that the concept itself didn't alienate the majority of players. It's combination with other problems, which broke the game release.

 

[Lebo44]

I also think that if Civ7 was allowed to be released in a more polished state, we'd have different narrative.

I agree with this perspective. While switching civilizations might not appeal to many players, Civ 7 is already a solid game. Just not as strong as its highly successful predecessors which still have an active player base.

It’s only missing a handful of key features to become a genuinely strong game (though still straying from the classic Civilization formula).

If Firaxis is working within tight budget constraints, opening up more aspects of the game to modding ASAP could be a smart move. It would give the modding community the freedom to fix persistent issues, such as AI, and create engaging scenarios which utilize the game’s new mechanics. This approach could be the fastest and most effective way to improve the reception.

 

[aelf]

Civ 7 has a lot of new additions besides Eras and Civ-Switching. Influence, towns/cities, unique civic trees, navigable rivers, the economic victory condition, new resource system, etc. There’s enough there to differentiate it from earlier games while still having that ‘classic’ formula. I don’t think a classic mode is a good idea for Civ 7 moving foward, but there is definitely a lot of innovations for a Civ 8 and 9

If Civ7 had those changes without eras and civ-switching, I'm willing to bet it would be widely regarded as something of a Civ6 2.0. It would probably have worked commercially, but what to change next without then inviting the backlash we are seeing now is a good question.

A significant part of the backlash is from people who want the franchise to be more like some previous iteration.

PS: I brought up Civ9 assuming that Civ8 plays it safe. Civ7 is radically innovative, but if it hadn't been, then Civ8 might've been the one shouldering the burden of trying to innovate more.

 

[Siptah]

I agree that while the changes to the turn-by-turn gameplay loop in civ 7 aren't small (commanders, resources, cities vs. town, no builders), they can't possibly carry a new iteration of civ. What would the theme be for such a game?

"We have refined civ VI in some ways – we've looked at some of the main issues that were brought up and thought of ways to alleviate these with changes to some basic mechanics. We've also listened to fans who wanted navigable rivers for 20 years. We've also added an enhance graphic update to make the game fit for the next few years."

Yeah, that sounds really great and not at all like another expansion or round of patches that is sold for the price of a premium game (even though some of these might not have been possible within civ VI).

 

[Siddorm]

I am thinking that they could release more content for Civ 6 if they want to give Civ 6 fans something to buy. This would seem to make more sense than trying to make Civ 7 more like Civ 6 (for example).

 

[itix]

I just want a good Civ game. It cant be difficult.

 

[GeneralZift]

I just want a good Civ game. It cant be difficult.

A game like Civ has a lot of momentum with general gamers, it's become a household title. I don't see why they're focusing so much on new stuff and getting new players.

Even if Civ7 was Civ6+ you'd probably see insane sales.

So they really should focus on Retention instead. I mean retaining the players between games (not losing them to past games for various reasons).

As an anecdote, I don't play Civ6, not because it's strictly bad in any way, but just because the AI is much worse than Civ5. The Ideology and World Congress systems were better. So when I try 6's new WC It just feels empty.

They totally remade the mechanic instead of improving it. For this reason, they lost retention. Obviously, that's not to say it's always the wrong thing to do, but this is my personal anecdote.

And because you have to keep waiting for DLC to have the same mechanics as the last game, many players will stay in the past until the new game is complete.

My suggestion is for the developers to try to aim for a more complete experience from the get-go, with a near perfect experience at the end of development.
This way, you will drag old players in, and not have to worry about new players who are already coming in from the name alone.

When new players come in and see the game is perfect, the AI is good, the multiplayer is good, all the mechanics fit, the Leaders are really fleshed out etc. They become lifelong consumers!

Anyway. Grab 2-3 standout mechanics, then just aim to have what you had last game but refined to the absolute limit. Only when you can't refine it, replace it. Don't change for sake of change.

 

[aieeegrunt]

If Civ7 had those changes without eras and civ-switching, I'm willing to bet it would be widely regarded as something of a Civ6 2.0. It would probably have worked commercially, but what to change next without then inviting the backlash we are seeing now is a good question.

A significant part of the backlash is from people who want the franchise to be more like some previous iteration.

PS: I brought up Civ9 assuming that Civ8 plays it safe. Civ7 is radically innovative, but if it hadn't been, then Civ8 might've been the one shouldering the burden of trying to innovate more.

People need to stop parroting the “1/3” quote like it’s some immutable law of physics.

Here is an even better and more universal mantra; If It Ain’t Broke, For the Love Of God Don’t Fix It, as the sad fate of Halo, Fallout and now Civ amply demonstrates.

There was literally nothing wrong and a lot right about Building An Empire To Stand The Test Of Time in a sandbox that left room for a lot of different playstyles.

There is plenty of room for experimenting within that basic format without losing half the playerbase immediatly, and having half the ones who did try it dislike it enough to leave negative reviews.

Civ’s 1 through 6 all play different, some more different than others, but they all kept that same winning formula.

I just want a good Civ game. It cant be difficult.

Look at what the previous succesfull titles did.

Do that

Look at what the dramatically unsuccesfull Civ7 did

Don’t do that.

 

[Leucarum]

So, I applaud Firaxis for their try, even though the shot is partly missed.

I also think that if Civ7 was allowed to be released in a more polished state, we'd have different narrative.

I think something which became an issue is how interconnected they made their new mechanics. Age transitions, legacy paths and civ switching torpedo the others if any of them are bad. They designed a game where everything had to work in unison right out of the gate.

That said, I think if leader/civ mixing and momentos (the non-interconnected changes) had been in there, plus the 1/3 improved mentioned before I suspect it would have been regarded as sufficiently innovative. I.e. people would have complained like hell about it. But we are firmly in what if territory.

 

[Crashdummy]

I also think that if Civ7 was allowed to be released in a more polished state, we'd have different narrative. Just a reminder - Civ7 held a record presales, despite age and civilization switch being advertised and explained in details since announcement. That means that the concept itself didn't alienate the majority of players. It's combination with other problems, which broke the game release.

This is wrong. Again, you have to ask those that DONT like the game that, not the ones that do. I bought the Founders edition DESPITE those features announce because i trusted Firaxis since they never let me down in the past. I dont care about the polish of the game, because i KNOW that will be fixed in the future, so it has 0 weight on me

Civ 7 failed not because of polish, every single Civ game launched unpolished, it failed because the game core concepts dont match the franchise core concepts, its as simple as that

If Civ7 had those changes without eras and civ-switching, I'm willing to bet it would be widely regarded as something of a Civ6 2.0. It would probably have worked commercially, but what to change next without then inviting the backlash we are seeing now is a good question.

A significant part of the backlash is from people who want the franchise to be more like some previous iteration.

PS: I brought up Civ9 assuming that Civ8 plays it safe. Civ7 is radically innovative, but if it hadn't been, then Civ8 might've been the one shouldering the burden of trying to innovate more.

Its a fallacy that the only change that can move the franchise/genre forward is age transitions and civ switching

There are many more ways to innovate without breaking the franchise formula

I think something which became an issue is how interconnected they made their new mechanics. Age transitions, legacy paths and civ switching torpedo the others if any of fhem are bad. They designed a game where everything had to work in unison right out of the gate.

That said, I think if leader/civ mixing and momentos (the non-interconnected changes) had been in there, plus the 1/3 improved mentioned before I suspect it would have been regarded as sufficiently innovative. I.e. people would have complained like hell about it. But we are firmly in what if territory.

Agree with this, civ/leaders mixing and momentos wouldnt alienate the playerbase because they dont break the franchise soul. That, and towns/cities (which to me is an adition, i dont know why people take this as somethign changed) would be more than enough adition

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Civ 7 failed not because of polish, every single Civ game launched unpolished, it failed because the game core concepts dont match the franchise core concepts, its as simple as that

What metrics are you using to say Civ 7 failed?

 

[Fripou]

What metrics are you using to say Civ 7 failed?

I will reply for OP : My eyes, I'm using my eyes to see the obvious

 

[Gori the Grey]

What metrics are you using to say Civ 7 failed?

You know what I find to be the most telling one? The relative paucity of YouTube "Let's Plays" or strategy guides.

Here are people who would love an audience for their content, if there was one. Their very livelihood depends on it. If there were an audience out there interested in Civ 7, there are a group of YouTubers who would happily be making content for that audience.

It would seem that there is not.

 

[Crashdummy]

What metrics are you using to say Civ 7 failed?

Every single one available. Be it player numbers, online interest (twitch, youtube), messageboards in general, Firaxis reaction (changes, executive producer talking about slow start, layoffs), etc, etc

Every single metric, while flawed when looked individually, points towards Civ 7 failing

 

[Civinator]

You know what I find to be the most telling one? The relative paucity of YouTube "Let's Plays" or strategy guides.
Here are people who would love an audience for their content, if there was one. Their very livelihood depends on it. If there were an audience out there interested in Civ 7, there are a group of YouTubers who would happily be making content for that audience. It would seem that there is not.

I think this is a good argument.

 

[aelf]

Its a fallacy that the only change that can move the franchise/genre forward is age transitions and civ switching

There are many more ways to innovate without breaking the franchise formula

Maybe you genuinely are only against ages and civ-switching, but it doesn't look like everyone shares the same opinion, even just here.

The "franchise formula" is vague, and if it weren't ages and civ-switching, many others would be complaining about any major changes too. That's inevitably going to be the fate of the game post-Civ6 (the most popular and mainstream iteration), which has accrued a lot of discontent from old fans who preferred earlier evolutions of the franchise, as well as many newer players to whom it is the definitive civ experience (and therefore anything different would not feel like the civ formula).

 

[Crashdummy]

Maybe you genuinely are only against ages and civ-switching, but it doesn't look like everyone shares the same opinion, even just here.

The "franchise formula" is vague, and if it weren't ages and civ-switching, many others would be complaining about any major changes too. That's inevitably going to be the fate of the game post-Civ6 (the most popular and mainstream iteration), which has accrued a lot of discontent from old fans who preferred earlier evolutions of the franchise, as well as many newer players to whom it is the definitive civ experience (and therefore anything different would not feel like the civ formula).

Its not vague, the formula has always been a sandbox experience where you can build your Civilization to stand the Test of Time, and it comes from way before Civ VI

Every Civ game had criticism and there is always claims that the previous were better, but NONE had this level of rejection, and we have had Civ games even less polished than Civ VII before, so i dont understand how people can blame polish on this. The reality is this is the first time the gameplay that made the franchise famous and successful was changed, significantly, and most players didnt like it. I personally always had things that i liked and things that i didnt, like we all had, and i think it happens with every game, but to get this level of rejection you need a lot more than just a lack of polish

I feel players that like age transitions/civ switching are trying to blame the failure on anything except those mechanics, but that is trying to hide the forest behind the tree

 

[zerokarma]

Civ 7 is being rejected because it betrays the core principles of what a civ game has always been. It's supposed to be a Sandbox but as time has gone on they have tried to force it to more of board game and with Civ 7 they took it too far and the community is rejecting it. The forced Ages and Leader/Civ switching should have been an alternative optional playmode or scenario with the "classic" way being the default.

 

[GeneralZift]

But what IS success and failure?

Did Alfred Nobel succeed because he invented Dynamite? Or fail because he regretted it?

Is Civ7 a failure based only on public merit? Or a success because it has won the personal hearts of a few?

Success is in the eye of the beholder. A serial killer may succeed in the murder of victims. But he fails when he gets a life sentence playing Civ7.

 

[Siddorm]

We can say that it has not yet been a big success but it is too early to call it a failure. Let's see how it goes.