Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[AD1730]

I dont know about this. Civ 6 was able to carve its own identity from Civ 5 without radically changing the core design in the way Civ 7 has.

Yeah, it's just not true. Civ switching proponents keep offering up this straw man argument despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[sonicmyst]

I think even if the devs do not create a classic mode, this franchise will move forward, whether you like it or not. And I am optimistic it will still find new players who appreciate the changes.

I for a fact was initially turned off by the announcement about civ switching because I feared it will be Humankind levels of switching (e.g. too many switches). But alas, civ switching has grown on me.

 

[Gorbles]

I dont know about this. Civ 6 was able to carve its own identity from Civ 5 without radically changing the core design in the way Civ 7 has.

Districts were seen as a very strong shift to "board game" instead of "video game" (policy cards too) and the art direction lead to endless predictions about how it was made for mobile (in a negative way).

The main difference is it was a success. If it hadn't have been you'd probably see a lot of the same arguments being made (that's my guess, anyway). That's because popular success is the ultimate rationalisation that most critical arguments rely on at their core.

Which would be fine if we were discussing "is the game popular", and not the implementation and design space of game mechanics.

 

[King of Prussia]

People are willing tolerate/ignore a lot of issues if the core of the game is fun. Personally i wonder if the core of 7, no matter how many improvements are made, will ever be good enough for most people(civ fans or 7s customers). If the answer is no, at what point do you accept this and decide to move on or vastly change what your plans were? Even with the layoffs, you still have a lot of people, and therefore a lot of money to earn to just break even. Not to mention whatever money was invested that needs to be paid back

 

[Gorbles]

Even with the layoffs, you still have a lot of people, and therefore a lot of money to earn to just break even.

This logic applies for indies. It doesn't really apply to publisher ownership models (especially the big publishers).

For a historic example, THQ's PC gaming department was small pennies compared to their Gameboy and related handheld business. That's what drove their finances. It's easy to handwave investment in a small part of the business when your main moneymaker is performing.

However these less critical ventures are often first on the chopping block if the publisher feels like it needs a quick buck.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think even if the devs do not create a classic mode, this franchise will move forward, whether you like it or not. And I am optimistic it will still find new players who appreciate the changes.

I for a fact was initially turned off by the announcement about civ switching because I feared it will be Humankind levels of switching (e.g. too many switches). But alas, civ switching has grown on me.

I've been thinking about this lately, and I agree Civ will move forward, but if Civ VII is deemed unprofitable and dropped, then I don't think we'll be seeing a Civ VII any time in the next 5, maybe 10 years. I think that's just been proven to be a risky and expensive investment. They've already got a massive and continuing player base with Civ VI, and more DLC would be relatively cheap to produce. I think we'd just see them return to supporting that game rather than creating a new one

 

[GeneralZift]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I agree Civ will move forward, but if Civ VII is deemed unprofitable and dropped, then I don't think we'll be seeing a Civ VII any time in the next 5, maybe 10 years. I think that's just been proven to be a risky and expensive investment. They've already got a massive and continuing player base with Civ VI, and more DLC would be relatively cheap to produce. I think we'd just see them return to supporting that game rather than creating a new one

If full sequels don't do well, publishers nowadays pivot towards remakes. Maybe we will see Civ4/5 remakes.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

If full sequels don't do well, publishers nowadays pivot towards remakes. Maybe we will see Civ4/5 remakes.

That's risky too though, Civ IV wasn't nearly as big as 5 and 6, and 5 and 6 still have massive active player bases for the original versions. They'd have to be quite different, which is a lot of investment, for the players to buy the same game again, when it's still playable and actively played a lot

 

[GeneralZift]

Districts were seen as a very strong shift to "board game" instead of "video game" (policy cards too) and the art direction lead to endless predictions about how it was made for mobile (in a negative way).

The main difference is it was a success. If it hadn't have been you'd probably see a lot of the same arguments being made (that's my guess, anyway). That's because popular success is the ultimate rationalisation that most critical arguments rely on at their core.

Which would be fine if we were discussing "is the game popular", and not the implementation and design space of game mechanics.

I mean many people did complain about Districts when they first came out, and people still do complain about Districts. They're not so much as a success that drives Civ6 as Civ6 is heavily carried by how easy to understand the game is for newcomers.

Like Civ6 is very intuitive, everything is colour coded, the UI is neat and presentable.

So because of districts and various other things, you left some players in Civ5. Because of UPT, you left some players in Civ4. Each game does leave players in the past because it's focused on changing and getting more players.

But the newest systems in 7 aren't strictly beginner friendly, so they don't grab new players, and they're not big with veteran players, so it appeals to a smaller target audience.

When we talk about popularity, that's got to be a contributing factor to the argument, but it's not the entire argument.
Tons and tons of convincing arguments about every topic under the sun I've seen on CFC. It's not just a popularity contest at the end.
It HELPS when it's obvious that majority opinion about a mechanic is positive or negative because it means many people share your opinion regardless of underlying reasons.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Districts were seen as a very strong shift to "board game" instead of "video game" (policy cards too) and the art direction lead to endless predictions about how it was made for mobile (in a negative way).

The main difference is it was a success. If it hadn't have been you'd probably see a lot of the same arguments being made (that's my guess, anyway). That's because popular success is the ultimate rationalisation that most critical arguments rely on at their core.

Which would be fine if we were discussing "is the game popular", and not the implementation and design space of game mechanics.

The main difference is that Civ6 had a fun new twist in really engaging with the map, but more important than that is *it was still a Civ game*

That’s why it was a success

 

[Gorbles]

But the newest systems in 7 aren't strictly beginner friendly, so they don't grab new players, and they're not big with veteran players, so it appeals to a smaller target audience.

This is also true. Onboarding and mechanical transparency (at least for the basic mechanics required to engage with the game) was a lot worse with VII. They've made strides in that regard, but they can always do more.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Which would be fine if we were discussing "is the game popular"

We are discussing that. The thread title is "player stats." It's just that we're trying to account for the game design elements that have made it less popular.

So I think this

That's because popular success is the ultimate rationalisation that most critical arguments rely on at their core.

gets it backwards. We are starting from the fact of low popular success and trying to give a critical account for why that is.

I think this

But the newest systems in 7 aren't strictly beginner friendly, so they don't grab new players, and they're not big with veteran players, so it appeals to a smaller target audience.

is a prime example. I've been arguing that crises and civ-switching (however it might alienate some older fans) is also a mistake in terms of making the game appealing to new fans. As you're just learning the basic Civ mechanics--"rise, rise and more rise"--you get hit with the opposite challenge: for a stretch, minimize losses instead. And, you suddenly have to make a game choice (which new package of advantages to take) that is bewildering in its complexity.

Those are game-design choices that have arguably had an impact on popularity.

Edit: I see that you acknowledged that last point in an x-post.

 

[kotpeter]

If Civ 5 remaster comes out, I can imagine people complaining about anti-snowballing in it, such as science penalty for settling more cities, slow workers, roads costing money, etc. given how many people started their civ journey with Civ 6.

Civ 4 may be the best game for some, but it's not the game that made Civ popular as it is now. Its mechanics and systems are more old school and dated. I don't think its return on investment would be great for the company.

 

[queenpea]

Civ 4 may be the best game for some, but it's not the game that made Civ popular as it is now. Its mechanics and systems are more old school and dated. I don't think its return on investment would be great for the company.

Do not underestimate the power of Baba Yetu.

 

[Crashdummy]

I dont know about this. Civ 6 was able to carve its own identity from Civ 5 without radically changing the core design in the way Civ 7 has.

Yeah, there are many ways to make changes without changing the core design of the franchise

But those that like age transitions and civ switching will go to any length to justify them, make it look like there was no alternative, that its the only way forway and many more non sense

Anyway, if they cant even admit at this point that Civ 7 is a failure, i dont think there is much to say

Some are starting to take the blindfold and see the reality though

 

[King Flevance]

People are willing tolerate/ignore a lot of issues if the core of the game is fun. Personally i wonder if the core of 7, no matter how many improvements are made, will ever be good enough for most people(civ fans or 7s customers). If the answer is no, at what point do you accept this and decide to move on or vastly change what your plans were? Even with the layoffs, you still have a lot of people, and therefore a lot of money to earn to just break even. Not to mention whatever money was invested that needs to be paid back

I agree and I actually think Civ 7 has a lot of potential to have that core be fun for many people, including those who currently have no desire for the game. Currently, the game design feels as though it wants you to do the same things over and over again. Building my library and academy feel the same as building my observatory and university. I am building "science buildings 1 and 2" on the same tile over and over again because the game keeps removing it. Overbuilding is dull because you just put the new one on the old one which just feels like you are building it again. Even though I know I am 'progressing', it doesn't feel like it. This happens a lot in the course of the game. Spamming missionaries to make a tally for my checklist is another one. (I usually just opt out of this one unless I can do it quick) I feel like religion in 7 was just a tacked on idea especially considering pantheons and religion have nothing to do with each other. Which also goes into ages feel too isolated. Which is why it can feel like 3 different minigames rather than 3 parts to the same whole.

I really do feel that a lot of this could be solved in multiple different ways and the repetition can be removed with dynamic gameplay that is fun. I even think it can be mostly fixed within a year.

But the newest systems in 7 aren't strictly beginner friendly, so they don't grab new players, and they're not big with veteran players, so it appeals to a smaller target audience.

This is my big concern for 7 because it not being beginner friendly is a problem. It is simplistic enough but the UI hides SO MUCH. Understanding happiness, for example, like actually tracking it to see exactly your income and how much is going out and WHY is difficult for me as a veteran. Even trying to track it through the yield screen is math that doesn't math properly. 9+2+3 -2 = 15? 5+3=10? This would look so random to a new player to the series and not fun to go dig online and in the atrocious UI to find it. There are multiple systems this game doesn't really make really clear and trying to track it in the game to understand makes even less sense. When you combo this with gameplay that, often enough, feels repetitive many new player will just put it down. The market has a ton of games with poor mechanics and repetitive gameplay. I do think the graphics will help buy some time here though with Civ 7.

I think veterans will tolerate a lot to find the "new civ experience" hiding beneath a lot of headaches. We are more familiar with the concepts and can estimate roughly what is important and we will watch youtube and dig through online discussions to find what we are missing to ignore the game's faults until it is patched.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If Civ 5 remaster comes out, I can imagine people complaining about anti-snowballing in it, such as science penalty for settling more cities, slow workers, roads costing money, etc. given how many people started their civ journey with Civ 6.

Civ 4 may be the best game for some, but it's not the game that made Civ popular as it is now. Its mechanics and systems are more old school and dated. I don't think its return on investment would be great for the company.

I might have something to say about your Civ 5 point in time, but your Civ 4 point does dovetail with something I've been mulling over for a while.

The designers and financiers of any game want to get the maximum number of players possible to play it. The designers because it's gratifying to see people liking your work; the financiers because of $. For an ongoing franchise like Civ, one thing that will mean will be a constant pressure to reach out to new possible markets. So consoles, Switch, etc. And new marketing models: DLCs, microtransactions.

People who liked the franchise up to 4 think of it as a computer strategy game, and think that every iteration after that has involved dumbing the game down. There is one poster here who is quite vocal in this view, and quite colorful in his expressions of it.

But I think your core point is correct: that fanbase is "old school" and, most importantly for my purposes here, small relative to the customer base that one might hope to draw by building one's game to appeal to console, Switch players, etc.

I think this is an especially powerful tension in the design of a Civ game, in part because of that starting idea that some older fans have about what a Civ game should be. For that fan, Civ shouldn't be for everyone; in fact, it should be for a pretty small cadre of the kind of audience that originally played computer games: geeky, socially-maladjusted intellectual loners. (Sid's crack about how, if they had friends, they wouldn't be playing his games). So the more that Firaxis "dumbs the game down" in a chase after a wider playerbase, the more disappointed the old-school fans become.

But on the other hand, one can only go so far in making Civ appeal broadly before one gets away from the core of the game itself. It's a pretty rare gamer who has the patience to carefully micro-manage multiple systems over a 300-turn strategy game to a final victory. Civ is never going to get the casual Candy Crush player.

Where all this has been leading me is to wonder, not really about Civ, but about some potential new, indie company. One that wants to make an old-school, Civ 4-style game, and is content, financially, with the niche of players who would buy such a game. My questions are "how big is that niche?" and therefore "what could such a company stand to earn if it made such a game?" and then "would the budget for such a game be sufficient to fund the design of a Civ 4-style game (that would be received by that niche as a fun successor to 4)?" In effect, my question is, "would it be possible, in this day and age, to fund the development of a Civ 4.2?"

 

[Leucarum]

I'd say the core of the game is already good - fundamentally it's still Civ and the 1/3 improved portion (as tough as that is to define exactly, but I'd say commanders, no builders, town/city split, events, highly detailed Civs) is solid.

The game is let down by part of the 1/3 new, and not even then there's some good bits (Leader & Civ mixing and matching has detractors, but it seems to be in a similar place to Districts or 1UPT in terms of popularity vs detractors). It's the ages and civ switching and all their attendant baggage which seem like they are the millstone around the games' neck, and the problem is that they are so interconnected that removing them is a massive undertaking if Firaxis wanted to do that.

Honestly, I think if you had the 1/3 improved, plus leader/civ mixing and momentos as the new component we'd still be talking about a dramatically updated Civ which had alienated far fewer people...

 

[King Flevance]

Where all this has been leading me is to wonder, not really about Civ, but about some potential new, indie company. One that wants to make an old-school, Civ 4-style game, and is content, financially, with the niche of players who would buy such a game. My questions are "how big is that niche?" and therefore "what could such a company stand to earn if it made such a game?" and then "would the budget for such a game be sufficient to fund the design of a Civ 4-style game (that would be received by that niche as a fun successor to 4)?" In effect, my question is, "would it be possible, in this day and age, to fund the development of a Civ 4.2?"

Another thing to remember about Civ 4 is open source code for modding. That was a big driving factor the popularity of that game. Anecdotal, but I have friends who bought it just to play FfH2 mod and then other mods but don't really play the base game because they don't care for the history backdrop but they like TBS 4X games. I think Old World proves there is a market as it doesn't have to be a Civ 4 clone. I think Civ 4 shines for many reasons but one of my personal favorites is its diplomatic relations are so transparent and you multiple ways to influence the AI. Some will attack while friendly and some won't ever. Most of your friendly AIs will actually support you as much as they would another friendly AI. There is not much player bias with the AI. This is rare in the 4x genre where player bias is what many devs lean on for "an engaging experience".

So I think the market could totally support a Civ 4.2 but you have to pull the correct elements to be successful. It isn't about workers chop rushing, stacks of doom with collateral damage, or square tiles. As you have pointed out before, we all have various diverse interests in these games. But I think AI relations, GP's multiple purposes per type, tile yield manipulation + the specialist vs. commerce mechanic allowing heavier customizable city specialization, and I even think the health and happiness mechanics for city caps all played a significant role. If you put all of that to hexes and made the city expansion upkeep cost more transparent, 100% I think you would have a 'hit' on your hands in that demographic. Maybe place it on an alien planet and call it Beyond Earth 2.

 

[GeneralZift]

I think we have it backwards about remakes. There's a core Civ audience that engages with every game more or less. Then there's like an outer casual audience which is tied to only one or two games.
Each of the games actually has their own appeal.
Civ8 if it came out tomorrow has only a chance of bringing in Civ4 or Civ5 players for example, because it's not strictly better than previous titles, but rather Different.

So older games have a huge market for remakes. This is how AoE managed to remake every single one of their titles and sell like hotcakes simultaneously.
You'll find rather interestingly that AoE2 DE and AOM Retold managed to bring in new players AND old players moved on, because the graphics are better, there's new content, you can play multiplayer easier, bug fixes, new music, new campaigns.

You'll always have the old game, but you want the old game with a new coat of paint to make you feel the way the old game did. Sometimes a sequel cannot do that.

Civ4 remastered and Civ5 remastered with optimization fixes, a complete new coat of paint, higher quality models / textures, balance, content, music, scenarios, the sky is the limit, and I for one would be very interested.

Players who jumped in at Civ6 or Civ7 might then say, oh wow, I can try a whole variety of different Civ games, now that they're freshly released and supported.
I can only see absolute wins for Firaxis and the fans here.

The only worry for them is for people to play Civ4/5 Remastered and find that they prefer it to the newer games and then not buy those.