Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Leucarum]

Snowballing can mean different things in different games too. In Civ7 it's mostly setting up your ageless stuff and grabbing the prime territory, in a single age that might not neccessarily be the same as "playing well" if the ageless stuff isn't your optimal call. But if you go down the snowball route the game's age system breaks down.

 

[Core Imposter]

You can see the problem Firaxis has in the comments about someone playing 300 hours and not being happy and the retort, if you got 300 hours out of it surely you got your money's worth. Well, I have been playing Civ IV for over 15 years. I haven't loaded the last three iterations at all, those I have copies around that I bought to support Sid's chewing tobacco habit.

The bar for a new game is extremely high. Some will buy for the bright and shiny objects. But for those of us that covet gameplay they haven't come remotely close to matching IV so why should we buy, just as important, why should they try to make a game with better gameplay if that means only that the customers who buy will be lost to them for maybe 25 years and maybe forever. It doesn't really pay to make a great game more than once.

To do it they would need to find a way to bind customers to a long-term contract of sorts. Maybe S4.99 a month for 10 years or $19.99 a month. Otherwise, why would they ever make another game of Civ IV's quality?

The better business model is to build the brand and then soak the mooks.

And that is a good thing because there is no evidence that they are capable of building a game of similar quality of the first four.

 

[Gorbles]

And that is a good thing because there is no evidence that they are capable of building a game of similar quality of the first four.

This is such a funny take, but I believe your sincerity with it. It's just, subjectively funny to me.

Snowballing can mean different things in different games too. In Civ7 it's mostly setting up your ageless stuff and grabbing the prime territory, in a single age that might not neccessarily be the same as "playing well" if the ageless stuff isn't your optimal call. But if you go down the snowball route the game's age system breaks down.

I feel like "setting up ageless stuff" isn't quite the same thing here either. The setup is intended. The payoff is intended.

Exploration is getting better, too. It's Modern that apparently still feels like a slog. I barely get there. Antiquity is too much fun.

 

[Leucarum]

The setup is intended. The payoff is intended.

The consequences are a problem.

I agree this is what Firaxis were planning from the outset with the mechanic, but I don't think it was fully appreciated how badly it would interact with the late game and Civ switching.

 

[itix]

I genuinely dislike snowballing in video games, and I can explain why (obviously, this is my opinion). I love a good challenge—I usually play on higher difficulty settings—so maybe I’m more sensitive to this issue, but what frustrates me about snowballing goes beyond difficulty; it’s about how the game’s pacing and balance break down over time.

On the contrary, I love to analyze strategy games, learn mechanics and get better each time. I like to play competitively and aggressively against the AI, snowball over it and get better at snowballing. When I was a kid, I almost lost the game to AI in Railroad Tycoon (precursor to Civ) because I made so much money that my income turned negative, almost bankrupting my imaginary railroad company. It was one of my best memories because it was a struggle to snowball even more to roll counters again and get on the positive side. Luckily, the game ended before my income was going to roll over to negative once again.

I managed to break the original Civilization similarly. When I had won the game, some of my stats appeared as if I had lost. I played both games at the max difficulty. Not for the challenge, but you get a better score. Still, I never realized that you can win the space race in 1AD. That is crazy and fascinating.

In a 10-hour game, snowballing often means I get 2 hours of engaging, strategic gameplay (if you played the correct difficulty for you), followed by 8 hours that feel like watching a cutscene (regardless of the difficulty you chose). The tension disappears, and I’m either steamrolling everything or stuck against an impossible challenge. The difficulty curve doesn’t evolve organically—it spikes or collapses, making the experience either tedious or dull.

That is fine. I mean, no need to be "ambitious" to win the game with the fewest possible turns or try to get record yields. Cities Skylines used to my one of my favorites and my only ambition was to make the best possible town ever. I treat Civ 6 similarly. I turn off victory conditions (keeping only world domination) and play it until I get bored. I am not even good at it. I learnt only recently that you should not push science until the early mid game.

I'll add another point talking about Civilization VI, but this is the same for the game with similar problems. The early game—like the Classic Ages—are fun and well-balanced. But as you progress, especially into the later eras, things start to unravel. The final stages often feel disconnected from the core mechanics. What’s the point of unlocking advanced units like airplanes if, by the time you get them, they’re practically useless? Air combat could be a highlight, but snowballing makes it irrelevant—you never really get to enjoy it. All the things you unlock at the end can't be "played as intended" basically.

You say “just increase the difficulty,” but that completely misses the point. For me, snowballing isn’t about winning too easily—it’s about the game losing its structure, its challenge, and ultimately, its meaning.

But with your playstyle, have you ever managed to get an interesting modern era in Civ 6? It seems that AI barely builds any airplanes and never uses them. Same with the navy. So the late game in Civ 6 was always broken. Devs never finished it.

Edit: I agree increasing the difficulty is pointless. It only adds bufs to the AI, making the beginning of the game more challenging. It has no effect to the end game.

 

[Gorbles]

The consequences are a problem.

I agree this is what Firaxis were planning from the outset with the mechanic, but I don't think it was fully appreciated how badly it would interact with the late game and Civ switching.

Something being intentional and a problem is different from being unintentional and a problem.

 

[Leucarum]

Something being intentional and a problem is different from being unintentional and a problem.

And yet still a problem.

Which is what this post chain will beocme if we contunue down this path of pedantry.

 

[Xandinho]

Yeah, in regard to France and Japan those aren't representing my favorite time periods of their respective civilizations, which is the Ancien Regime and Shogunate period, so I feel like those parts are missing. With more DLC I wouldn't be surprised about Japan getting another age to remedy that, but I'm not so sure about France.
I'm not really a fan of Great Britain's design either. I think England in Civ 6 have them beat. Too bad that a proper Exploration England probably isn't coming.

And then there’s the path you have to follow just to play as some favorite civilizations. If I want to play as France, I have to go through Rome and the Normans first, even though I don’t want to play as them at that moment. There are even worse cases, like Meiji Japan, where I first have to go through completely unrelated cultures such as the Khmer and Majapahit.

 

[Gorbles]

And yet still a problem.

Which is what this post chain will beocme if we contunue down this path of pedantry.

It's not intended as pedantry. The potential solutions differ depending on the root cause. Triage is different. It's fundamental games design discussion! Plenty of room for disagreement for sure.

 

[Leucarum]

It's not intended as pedantry. The potential solutions differ depending on the root cause. Triage is different. It's fundamental games design discussion! Plenty of room for disagreement for sure.

Hmm... Do you think it's accidental or intended? Or a mix of both? I think the current situation around snowballing is a result ofnintentionally crafted systems having unintended consequences.

But also. Why does it matter it was intended? This feels like a weird tangent to me. The problem is the same regardless of whether they intended it or not. It feels like intention only affects how much they might dislike the inevitable solution.

 

[Bug Repellent]

I genuinely dislike snowballing in video games, and I can explain why (obviously, this is my opinion). I love a good challenge—I usually play on higher difficulty settings—so maybe I’m more sensitive to this issue, but what frustrates me about snowballing goes beyond difficulty; it’s about how the game’s pacing and balance break down over time.

In a 10-hour game, snowballing often means I get 2 hours of engaging, strategic gameplay (if you played the correct difficulty for you), followed by 8 hours that feel like watching a cutscene (regardless of the difficulty you chose). The tension disappears, and I’m either steamrolling everything or stuck against an impossible challenge. The difficulty curve doesn’t evolve organically—it spikes or collapses, making the experience either tedious or dull.

I'll add another point talking about Civilization VI, but this is the same for the game with similar problems. The early game—like the Classic Ages—are fun and well-balanced. But as you progress, especially into the later eras, things start to unravel. The final stages often feel disconnected from the core mechanics. What’s the point of unlocking advanced units like airplanes if, by the time you get them, they’re practically useless? Air combat could be a highlight, but snowballing makes it irrelevant—you never really get to enjoy it. All the things you unlock at the end can't be "played as intended" basically.

You say “just increase the difficulty,” but that completely misses the point. For me, snowballing isn’t about winning too easily—it’s about the game losing its structure, its challenge, and ultimately, its meaning.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Like others have said, snowballing does seem to mean different things for different people. For me, it just means steamrolling the AI when I have 2x or more higher yields than any AI player. The other issues you mention like pacing, balance, and structure are separate issues that can lead to snowballing, but they aren't exactly snowballing.

I do agree with the late game issues you mention. I hate that the AI, when is racing towards a cultural victory sells its great works to me. Or that when I'm on the verge of a science victory, it invades with GDRs and instead of pillaging Spaceports, Campuses, and razing cities, it just moves the GDRs around like a fool. Or that it can't use anti air defense at all. But are these examples of snowballing, or just incompetent AI?

 

[Siptah]

And then there’s the path you have to follow just to play as some favorite civilizations. If I want to play as France, I have to go through Rome and the Normans first, even though I don’t want to play as them at that moment. There are even worse cases, like Meiji Japan, where I first have to go through completely unrelated cultures such as the Khmer and Majapahit.

All the modern civs are fairly easy to unlock though, especially if you are actually gaming for it.

 

[Gorbles]

Hmm... Do you think it's accidental or intended? Or a mix of both? I think the current situation around snowballing is a result ofnintentionally crafted systems having unintended consequences.

But also. Why does it matter it was intended? This feels like a weird tangent to me. The problem is the same regardless of whether they intended it or not. It feels like intention only affects how much they might dislike the inevitable solution.

I think the current design is intended. I think the lack of polish for Exploration and Modern indicate a rushed release (or at least, a release that wasn't ready to be released).

You're right in that there are often laws of unintended consequences (which players often find and optimise for, because by hours invested nothing beats a dedicated fan ). And I think we've seen some of their design assumptions meet that, but that's also healthy. Developers can't reasonably playtest everything, and taking feedback from the community is overall a benefit (note for other readers: this is not a justification for unfinished, buggy or otherwise unpolished aspects of any game).

It matters because we're not the ones fixing it. Well, barring what modders are attempting, where they can. The developers are fixing it. Intent matters, because intent is relevant to design goals. A lot of people like to say "well the only thing they can do is abandon everything and do X", but games design is far more malleable than that. There are often multiple answers to any single question, and there are often a lot of questions that benefit from better answers. I helped part of my product's 2026 roadmap today (well, for the past coupla weeks), and I was able to contribute to three different design paths for a feature that we need to deliver (in that the feature is deemed mission-critical for the business). And none of them are locked-in. I have expressed technical preference, we've scoped out the relevant costs, and I've still cautioned for wiggle room for the risk inherent to each. And that's just technical implementation. That doesn't even account for playtesting (which we don't do because we're not making video games, but substitute this for "customer testing"). Intent is absolutely a valuable part of the equation where domain experts pool knowledge in order to best decide how to design a feature for implementation. It shapes the possibility space the feature can live in before it ever gets to customers.

 

[Core Imposter]

The Firaxis mantra is rise, rise, and rise. Sid preaches it and Civ 7 seemed to confirm it as everyone freaked out when their snowball melted a little after the crisis.

 

[GeneralZift]

The Firaxis mantra is rise, rise, and rise. Sid preaches it and Civ 7 seemed to confirm it as everyone freaked out when their snowball melted a little after the crisis.

The problem is not that there might be a fall to your rise, and that there is a push and pull to it. A good game can't simply reward you endlessly for doing nothing, that's not fun.
So the issue not that the snowball melted but that they sort of throw it in the microwave every third of the game and it feels artificial and tacky.

 

[Leucarum]

I think the current design is intended. I think the lack of polish for Exploration and Modern indicate a rushed release (or at least, a release that wasn't ready to be released).

You're right in that there are often laws of unintended consequences (which players often find and optimise for, because by hours invested nothing beats a dedicated fan ). And I think we've seen some of their design assumptions meet that, but that's also healthy. Developers can't reasonably playtest everything, and taking feedback from the community is overall a benefit (note for other readers: this is not a justification for unfinished, buggy or otherwise unpolished aspects of any game).

It matters because we're not the ones fixing it. Well, barring what modders are attempting, where they can. The developers are fixing it. Intent matters, because intent is relevant to design goals. A lot of people like to say "well the only thing they can do is abandon everything and do X", but games design is far more malleable than that. There are often multiple answers to any single question, and there are often a lot of questions that benefit from better answers. I helped part of my product's 2026 roadmap today (well, for the past coupla weeks), and I was able to contribute to three different design paths for a feature that we need to deliver (in that the feature is deemed mission-critical for the business). And none of them are locked-in. I have expressed technical preference, we've scoped out the relevant costs, and I've still cautioned for wiggle room for the risk inherent to each. And that's just technical implementation. That doesn't even account for playtesting (which we don't do because we're not making video games, but substitute this for "customer testing"). Intent is absolutely a valuable part of the equation where domain experts pool knowledge in order to best decide how to design a feature for implementation. It shapes the possibility space the feature can live in before it ever gets to customers.

I'm sorry, I really don't see where you want to take this tangent.

I have to be honest, I have big doubts about whether they can fix modern or whether it is a flaw in how Civ7 was designed. There's tension between wanting your empire to feel continuous and keeping the game competitive enough that each age matters.

I have a sinking feeling that there isn't a balance you can strike which enough players would buy into... And then Civ switching makes the whole thing worse by making 1/3 of civs significantly less relevant.

This was my argument. I really don't follow how we got from here to a discussion about intentionality. Sorry, just a bit lost about where this is going.

 

[Gorbles]

This was my argument. I really don't follow how we got from here to a discussion about intentionality. Sorry, just a bit lost about where this is going.

It's a discussion about games design. It started out of the snowballing tangent, which for the sake of our latest tangent starts at the top of the page (at 50 posts per page) here.

I'm sure you have doubts, but I was discussing snowballing, which you replied to / on the topic of, and I went from there r.e. intent when it comes to what determines running away with victory with no chance that any other player can catch up (e.g. snowballing). The meat of my original reply to Bug Repellent was on the last page, here.

When it comes to intent, my position is simple. Developer intent matters*. You can agree or not, I don't want to force you any which way!

*as does player feedback, obviously.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

The biggest changes are changing civ name/identity, and unit placement, right? I'd say so. Both seems to be something you could change to be less radical changes. In fact, the second is already fixed in one of the possible settings.

Easiest way to fix this?

You keep the same Civ and select different benefits with the other civs names scrubbed away between eras in continuity mode.

Functionally, the game essentially plays very similarly but with the removal of the cosmetic and name changes between eras it solves the issue of people not feeling immersed and losing continuity.

 

[Leucarum]

It's a discussion about games design. It started out of the snowballing tangent, which for the sake of our latest tangent starts at the top of the page (at 50 posts per page) here.

I'm sure you have doubts, but I was discussing snowballing, which you replied to / on the topic of, and I went from there r.e. intent when it comes to what determines running away with victory with no chance that any other player can catch up (e.g. snowballing). The meat of my original reply to Bug Repellent was on the last page, here.

When it comes to intent, my position is simple. Developer intent matters*. You can agree or not, I don't want to force you any which way!

*as does player feedback, obviously.

Ok buddy, I'll leave this at me not agreeing that intent matters in terms of whether something is or is not a problem.

 

[Krikkit1]

I will never understand what is so bad about snowballing. I think it's the amazingly satisfying gift for playing really well. If it happens in too many games and you find the game too easy, increase difficulty. Ideally, the game should have a difficulty for which even playing really well you have a 50-50 chance of losing. Chopping the game into age transitions to kneecap people that play the game very well is very, very strange to me. It's like trying to make Magnus Carlson enjoy a chess game against a novice teenager and every time Magnus pulls ahead someone gives the teen three queens and a knight to even things out. Does anyone think Magnus would enjoy such games for long? If snowballing is an issue, all we need is competent AI. Not "rubber band" gimmicks.

The problem is snowballing means the early game is hard and the late game is easy...
The only solution to that is to Red Queen it where you Must snowball because your enemies are getting stronger all the time.

Which I think is the solution... your (AI) competitors get Increasing bonuses as the game goes on.