Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[AD1730]

Small maps, fast games, zero focus on AI and they always showcase the game in a multiplayer setting.

And excessive focus on balance. All points to an MP-first development strategy.

 

[queenpea]

And excessive focus on balance. All points to an MP-first development strategy.

Yet with all the focus on balance, we got some crazy outcomes.

 

[GeneralZift]

Yet with all the focus on balance, we got some crazy outcomes.

This a classic phenomenon with strategy games, where they try so hard to make it balanced that they tack on 100 things and it ends up being unbalanced.

 

[Nikolai II]

And excessive focus on balance. All points to an MP-first development strategy.

The game was made more balanced at start. Does not mean it was an MP game at first.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

fast games

Yet one of their stated aims was for games to last longer!

 

[Noble Zarkon]

While I can't say MP is primary focus for Civ7, it's clearly much bigger focus than before

Yes I have no issues with that statement.

I do think that the game suffers from a focus on the Deity min/max streamers rather than the ordinary player and perhaps competitive MP feeds into that as well.

 

[protocol7]

I think it’s fairly non-controversial at this point to say, at least to some extent, it’s unclear what their aims were, if they were consistent with each other, or if they achieved them in the way they wanted. Which isn’t to say it’s too late to have and deliver a coherent vision, but it would be hard to say exactly what it is they are aiming for based on what they have said and what they have shipped so far.

It’s funny, I’m a deity player who likes losing (it means I got a good challenge, which for me is fun.) And @Noble Zarkon you can perceive that the game was too optimised in my favour, and at the same time I can feel like they totally abandoned me. I think both our perceptions are true, and this is more either to lack of communication or execution (or both) than anything else. Not from you or I, but from the developer.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

would be hard to say exactly what it is they are aiming for based on what they have said

I thought it was pretty clear from the dev diaries and everything else - longer games which people finish, making the whole game feel like the first 100 turns, making starting location less important and wider geographic representation of Leaders and Civs.

 

[protocol7]

Sorry I might be a bit lost. Not then more focusing on min/max players over regular players than before? Or multiplayer? I feel like a reasonable person could assume that. I thought you said that.

There’s evidence for a lot of potentially different, conflicting things they may have focused on more or less based on what was said in combination with what they delivered, which was the point of the remaining part of my sentence (which you cut off in your quote for some reason.) But since cutting off that part changes the meaning, I’m not sure what you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me on exactly.

 

[stealth_nsk]

In my view, the top-level goal is clearly to get as much new audience as possible, while losing as few of the old audience as possible. Both short MP games and long SP games are the secondary goals which stem from this top-level goal. Ages system is the most obvious way to resolve conflict between those two secondary goals.

 

[MutilationWave]

In my view, the top-level goal is clearly to get as much new audience as possible, while losing as few of the old audience as possible. Both short MP games and long SP games are the secondary goals which stem from this top-level goal. Ages system is the most obvious way to resolve conflict between those two secondary goals.

What percentage of players actually play multiplayer? Like 5% or something? I tried it once with 6 and it was not fun for my opponent (IRL friend) because I take so long taking my turns. In fact in single player I end up reloading autosave a lot because my mouse is worn out and sometimes triple clicks, and sometimes I straight up misclick . I'm not trying to get any advantage, it's just when I move a naval unit and then it tells two of my frontline military to head out to sea halfway across the world that is unacceptable to me. Or I thought I had my commander selected and instead have two frontline military swap positions and lose their turn. I will reload autosave for this much of the time.

So my opponent was bored and I was mad I couldn't fix my mistakes. Then when it became clear I was pulling pretty far ahead, he didn't want to play anymore. I just think they need to support single player and not waste any more time on multiplayer, because that's such a small section of the players and it's never going to be a game seller for them.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What percentage of players actually play multiplayer? Like 5% or something? I tried it once with 6 and it was not fun for my opponent (IRL friend) because I take so long taking my turns. In fact in single player I end up reloading autosave a lot because my mouse is worn out and sometimes triple clicks, and sometimes I straight up misclick . I'm not trying to get any advantage, it's just when I move a naval unit and then it tells two of my frontline military to head out to sea halfway across the world that is unacceptable to me. Or I thought I had my commander selected and instead have two frontline military swap positions and lose their turn. I will reload autosave for this much of the time.

So my opponent was bored and I was mad I couldn't fix my mistakes. Then when it became clear I was pulling pretty far ahead, he didn't want to play anymore. I just think they need to support single player and not waste any more time on multiplayer, because that's such a small section of the players and it's never going to be a game seller for them.

Among current audience, multiplayer is probably not very popular, but I don't know exact percentage.

However I think the idea is not aiming at current civ players, but at some new audience. Turn-based SP strategic games market as very crowded in the recent years, while MP-oriented games in this niche are almost non-existent. So, this looks like interesting shot. If there's really a significant market here, Civ7 will win a jackpot by being almost the only game to grab it for several years to come. If it's a miss, well, Civ7 still has decent SP gameplay.

 

[reddishrecue]

I've checked a few times how the multiplayer lobby is and I gotta say that even though it is not full or with a lot of people, it still has a decent amount of people to get a game going.

 

[MutilationWave]

Among current audience, multiplayer is probably not very popular, but I don't know exact percentage.

However I think the idea is not aiming at current civ players, but at some new audience. Turn-based SP strategic games market as very crowded in the recent years, while MP-oriented games in this niche are almost non-existent. So, this looks like interesting shot. If there's really a significant market here, Civ7 will win a jackpot by being almost the only game to grab it for several years to come. If it's a miss, well, Civ7 still has decent SP gameplay.

Huge swing and a miss. They need to refocus on their core audience and get the game working properly, then they can try making it better for multiplayer. As you said, they have little competition there, and I don't think the regular civ player cares about MP, nor do the usual MP gamers care about 4X.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Huge swing and a miss. They need to refocus on their core audience and get the game working properly, then they can try making it better for multiplayer. As you said, they have little competition there, and I don't think the regular civ player cares about MP, nor do the usual MP gamers care about 4X.

Well, it's not about current civ players and it's not a miss yet, because new players rarely come to buy game at full price.

So it's kind of working in two direction simultaneously. Firaxis wants to improve the game for those who already bought it, people mostly interested on SP games (I assume) and once the game get better press, gather some new players on sales, offering them both SP and MP experience.

BTW, one of the cool features of MP is that it allows so called product-led growth, where people invite their friends. So it's a perfect tool for aiming at some new segments.

 

[AD1730]

Well, it's not about current civ players and it's not a miss yet, because new players rarely come to buy game at full price.

So it's kind of working in two direction simultaneously. Firaxis wants to improve the game for those who already bought it, people mostly interested on SP games (I assume) and once the game get better press, gather some new players on sales, offering them both SP and MP experience.

BTW, one of the cool features of MP is that it allows so called product-led growth, where people invite their friends. So it's a perfect tool for aiming at some new segments.

Classic case of going for an audience you'd like to have rather than focusing on the one you have. I feel extremely confident that this strategy won't work and that the stats we've seen thus far back me up. We've seen time and time again with entertainment companies doing this kind of thing over the past decade. It rarely works.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Classic case of going for an audience you'd like to have rather than focusing on the one you have. I feel extremely confident that this strategy won't work and that the stats we've seen thus far back me up. We've seen time and time again with entertainment companies doing this kind of thing over the past decade. It rarely works.

Normal strategy is to focus on both. Old audience doesn't grow, it could only shrink, so to grow you have to somehow aim where you haven't aimed before. On the other hand, totally forgetting old audience is surely too risky. And Firaxis clearly aims toward both audiences, although it's hard to say whether proportion is right.

There were actually pretty interesting debates on this topic in strategic management circles in the recent years.

 

[Gorbles]

Small maps, fast games, zero focus on AI and they always showcase the game in a multiplayer setting.

Pretty sure they heavily emphasised the increase in AI development resource a bunch of times. No?

Like I'm in semi-lurking mode, but it's fascinating the amount of times a group decide that something happened based on nothing but their own perspective of what they saw in the lead-up to the game being released. Did you genuinely not see all the talk about the AI, the threads about it, the developer quotes? Will your opinion change now, now that I've pointed it out?

 

[Leucarum]

Yes I have no issues with that statement.

I do think that the game suffers from a focus on the Deity min/max streamers rather than the ordinary player and perhaps competitive MP feeds into that as well.

I'd be willing to wager that the desire for yield porn created the exploration science legacy path, which is unfortunately just a test of whether you understand how adjacencies and specialists work. If yes you automatically score it more or less...

 

[Xur]

Pretty sure they heavily emphasised the increase in AI development resource a bunch of times. No?

Like I'm in semi-lurking mode, but it's fascinating the amount of times a group decide that something happened based on nothing but their own perspective of what they saw in the lead-up to the game being released. Did you genuinely not see all the talk about the AI, the threads about it, the developer quotes? Will your opinion change now, now that I've pointed it out?

There’s what Firaxis says, and then there’s the reality of the product they delivered. I choose to judge the product itself - not the marketing. Will your opinion change now?

Nice condescending reply by the way. Lovely way to discuss a subject.