Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Smegger213]

You're right, we won't get a finalised average for October until it's over but we still have the current October average, and so far it's looking good.

I didn't just say we had the best reviewed day yet, but the 2nd best reviewed month since release, and the 4th best reviewed week.

The total number of positive/negative reviews isn't the only thing that matters. The positive % can't rise without new reviews (unless people change their negative reviews), hence why better recent reviews is significant, and worth talking about.

How can Octobers current average be looking good, when the current 30 day average is 6613?
That's still less than the 30 day averages for June, July & August.
Granted, there are another 11 days of October to go. But, I doubt the figure will rise much more.

Now, lets examine your claim that this is the best reviewed positive month.
Its a simple matter of looking at the 1 month table on SteamDB, then adding up the positive & negative reviews.
From 20th Sept to 20th Oct, there are 464 positive reviews and 589 negative reviews. That's over 120 more negative reviews than positive ones.

But, lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and just count up the reviews for days in October itself.
From 1st Oct to 20th Oct, we can see that it is 338 positive reviews, but 400 negative reviews.

Hang on, didn't you say this is the most positive reviewed month since release?
The total reviews is still 47% positive to 53% negative.
Isn't that worse than what it was a few weeks ago?

 

[IntelligentDisk]

How can Octobers current average be looking good, when the current 30 day average is 6613?
That's still less than the 30 day averages for June, July & August.
Granted, there are another 11 days of October to go. But, I doubt the figure will rise much more.

Because at the time I looked at it, the 30 day average included 12/13 days from September. Didn't think that would need explaining but here we are. The average for October is likely even higher now than when I looked at it because it's just after a weekend.

Now, lets examine your claim that this is the best reviewed positive month.

Its a simple matter of looking at the 1 month table on SteamDB, then adding up the positive & negative reviews.
From 20th Sept to 20th Oct, there are 464 positive reviews and 589 negative reviews. That's over 120 more negative reviews than positive ones.

But, lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and just count up the reviews for days in October itself.
From 1st Oct to 20th Oct, we can see that it is 338 positive reviews, but 400 negative reviews.

Hang on, didn't you say this is the most positive reviewed month since release?
The total reviews is still 47% positive to 53% negative.
Isn't that worse than what it was a few weeks ago?

I never claimed it was the best reviewed month. I said it was the second best reviewed month, and that's a fact. Reading can be hard sometimes. I even gave a breakdown in another comment which I'm guessing you didn't read it. You should go and read it.

 

[Smegger213]

Some people will just not accept the fact that Civ 7 is failing.

 

[Kyriakos]

Tbh it's impressive that the franchise lasted for so long. I was 11 years old when Civ1 appeared (and it immediately became one of my favorite games) and a freshman at university when this site was created

 

[stealth_nsk]

Some people will just not accept the fact that Civ 7 is failing.

The last thing this thread has is "facts"

 

[Kev1916]

Tbh it's impressive that the franchise lasted for so long. I was 10 years old when Civ1 appeared (and it immediately became one of my favorite games) and a freshman at university when this site was created

It’s been a good run , hopefully the IP can be passed on to a team that looks to continue the franchise, rather than exploit the fan base

 

[Pfeffersack]

The last thing this thread has is "facts"

...which means it is called for good reasons "(...) speculation thread" in its title

 

[Kyriakos]

With so many civ games - most of which brought something different - I am not sure if "continuing the franchise" is viable. For starters, the target audience has changed with the decades, and probably the most distinctive aspects of Civilization are in past iterations of it.

 

[Evolena]

What is defining a franchise anyway, beside its name? Take the Elder Scrolls, for the ones with numbering I bet Skyrim feels different from Arena, and Legends and Online are in that same name grouping too while vastly different.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What is defining a franchise anyway, beside its name? Take the Elder Scrolls, for the ones with numbering I bet Skyrim feels different from Arena, and Legends and Online are in that same name grouping too while vastly different.

The name is the most important, because franchise is mostly about marketing. Might and Magic had games in different genres and HoMM in particular changed world at least once.

 

[aelf]

What is defining a franchise anyway, beside its name? Take the Elder Scrolls, for the ones with numbering I bet Skyrim feels different from Arena, and Legends and Online are in that same name grouping too while vastly different.

Indeed. But it's almost a rule that when there's change, there will be reactionaries who invent a mythical identity for something - be it game franchises, TV series, or nations - and try to create movement to restore that identity.

 

[Xur]

What is defining a franchise anyway, beside its name? Take the Elder Scrolls, for the ones with numbering I bet Skyrim feels different from Arena, and Legends and Online are in that same name grouping too while vastly different.

RPGs were limited by hardware - a strategy game on tiles is less so. The shift Elder Scrolls and all other RPG did was natural. What civ7 does is not natural, logical or in any way. Sorry.

 

[Gorbles]

RPGs were limited by hardware - a strategy game on tiles is less so. The shift Elder Scrolls and all other RPG did was natural. What civ7 does is not natural, logical or in any way. Sorry.

Strategy games are famously unburdened by hardware, to the extent that CiV turn times weren't affected by CPU performance at all.

@GeneralZift - need more time to get to your post. Might make a thread out of it! Thanks for the reply

 

[bladex1200]

What is defining a franchise anyway, beside its name? Take the Elder Scrolls, for the ones with numbering I bet Skyrim feels different from Arena, and Legends and Online are in that same name grouping too while vastly different.

I mean if we're speaking to that, I don't think most Elder Scrolls fans from Morrowind onward are big fans of the approaches taken in Legends and Online, but it's irrelevant how people feel about a game as long as the game sells and finds its audience. The fact a subsection of fans are unhappy with the franchise only matters insofar as they are the primary buyers/players of newer entries. If newer entries are able to successfully broaden their horizons, it actually matters absolutely zero if the existing fans are bewildered by or hate the new entry, or indeed if the new entry is even a totally different type of game (e.g. the fact Fallout 3 is an first-person action RPG is irrelevant to whether it defines or doesn't define the franchise, only its success matters; the fact it succeeded and influenced the development of future games changed the nature of its franchise, even if RPG die-hard fans from 1/2 hated it).

I think a lot of people are dishonest when they say they want Civ7 to succeed but feel it cannot succeed with its current trajectory. I think a lot of us actually want Civ7 to fail because if it fails there's the possibility the franchise will return with a future entry containing features we enjoy. It could also just die, that's a risk with any game failing in a franchise, but I think what many of us don't want is 7 succeeding and becoming the template for future entries (whether because you hate era-splitting, you hate civ-switching, you hate leader/civ detachment, etc). It just seems vindictive and mean to say so, so nobody wants to admit it.

But I don't see what's so wrong with admitting you hate a franchise entry and want it to crater. This is a free market, after all, nobody owes anyone anything product-wise. If the old adage to "vote with your wallet" is to be taken accurately, people who hate the game should be excited and pushing for wallot-voters to not buy it. And people who want the game to succeed should be excited that it is doing well. Which is why in this thread people constantly talk past each other and straight-up lie or cherry-pick or misread data to suit their preferred end.

 

[Core Imposter]

Exponential Ai is here and a lot of games that are now in development could well be filed in 13 with AI designs taking their place. Mostly likely outcome, I predict, is 7 is aborted so that Firaxis can work on some sort of new game built around and by AI. Could be dinos. Sid couldn't make it work but AI will be better than any human designer.

 

[Core Imposter]

The hardware will be the bottleneck, but when we get the hardware right, our experience playing as one of these leaders will be so similar to being Victoria, or whoever, that we will be picking out dresses for the ball and attending beheadings in which we will smell the blood.

So, like the new games will launch in a barebones manner and build themselves on demand. Think about a Civ game and at some point Gori the Grey wants to command an expedition to the find the new world, which won't be in the game at launch. But the AI will build it, allow Gori to play it in real time, by reaching out and finding the components it needs and putting it together on the fly. The voyage would then be part of the game library and future expeditions can use this as food for the next thought. If the player base decides they want the nominal new 4x games to warp into a Caribbean pirate battle royale, then that will happen. Games will evolve. So that eventually the AI will provide only one product, GAME, which can be any game we can imagine or desire. The problem is individually; our imagination is limited and repetitive. Thus, we will share and if we are sharing all the world might as well be in the same GAME. And so we will. We will all end up living in an AI created real time game world, which is the solution to the problem of 95% of us losing our jobs to AI.

The future is now.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Think about a Civ game and at some point Gori the Grey wants to command an expedition to the find the new world, which won't be in the game at launch. But the AI will build it, allow Gori to play it in real time, by reaching out and finding the components it needs and putting it together on the fly.

The future is now.

The future might not be quite yet.

I just asked Google's AI to compare the sugar content of a QPC and a Filet o Fish.

It told me this:

Whereas the correct answers are this for Filet o Fish (5g):

and this for QPC (10g):

Notice not only that its figures are incorrect vs McDonalds' own site (which it didn't think to consult), but that the figures in its table are different than the figures it gives in its text--and in such a way as to give a different answer to the core question asked.

Not ready for prime time (and never will be, in my guess). Gori the Grey is staying put on dry land.

 

[Core Imposter]

Eh? They are spending all their money on compute for the necessary goal of beating China. AI research is racing ahead at such a pace that if they stopped now, it would take decades for engineering and manufacturing of products to catch up.

But the way it plays out is that the AI will pick up the baton and run with it. If it is not advancing under its own power this instant, we may be no more than 5 or 10 minutes to liftoff. We will not get a notification of our demotion to secondary status and if we did what difference?

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It can't accurately look up how much sugar is in a Filet o Fish. I'm not worried about it demoting me to secondary status. No, that's not just around the corner.

 

[fantsu]

RPGs were limited by hardware - a strategy game on tiles is less so. The shift Elder Scrolls and all other RPG did was natural. What civ7 does is not natural, logical or in any way. Sorry.

Elder Scrolls did the same thing than Civ. It casualized and simplified the whole sandbox idea.
We will never get back the details and fun of Daggerfall because since Morrowind Bethesda focused on console markets and low quality games.

I thought Firaxis would be better.