Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[AddAdamSmith]

"I am going to ignore not only this thread, but the pricing strategies that firms actually use to set prices, and instead try to apply what I learned in college economics to a situation in which these theories do not apply in any sensible way unless your entire way of thinking is based on applying economics to everything"

Econ101 doesn’t explain everything, but it provides useful building blocks for understanding the behavior of actors in a market.

The last few posts are just a fun example of a topic that usually doesn’t have fun examples and resorts to talking about student discounts and dynamic airline pricing. When people say things like “I don’t think it’s worth $120, so I’ll wait for the Steam Sale”, that’s a perfect example of willingness to pay! When you talk about price-setting without independent of other suppliers are selling at, that’s treating it as a monopoly!

The real world is more complicated that Econ 101 because there are few perfectly-competitive markets and few true monopolies, but everyone on this page has already implicitly assumed that Firaxis is a monopoly, and therefore only needs to find a price at which their revenue is maximized. If that’s the case, then obviously they should rationally be engaging in price discrimination, and they are!

 

[Ornen]

Econ101 doesn’t explain everything, but it provides useful building blocks for understanding the behavior of actors in a market.

The last few posts are just a fun example of a topic that usually doesn’t have fun examples and resorts to talking about student discounts and dynamic airline pricing. When people say things like “I don’t think it’s worth $120, so I’ll wait for the Steam Sale”, that’s a perfect example of willingness to pay! When you talk about price-setting without independent of other suppliers are selling at, that’s treating it as a monopoly!

The real world is more complicated that Econ 101 because there are few perfectly-competitive markets and few true monopolies, but everyone on this page has already implicitly assumed that Firaxis is a monopoly, and therefore only needs to find a price at which their revenue is maximized. If that’s the case, then obviously they should rationally be engaging in price discrimination, and they are!

I actually agree with much of this, I would say most pricing (including Civ) can be accurately described as administered pricing if you’re looking through an economic lens.

maybe I misread you at first. my overall viewpoint is that supply & demand don’t readily fit to pricing this kind of product

 

[KayAU]

Maybe Firaxis could release a "classic Civ option" expansion, which would still allow for the current state of Civ7 but also give you the option to go "classic" where civs won't be changing randomly with era nor have leaders from completely unrelated civs. And test the waters with it. If it does well, they can entirely remove the current set-up in a follow-up expansion. Of course such a plan will cost serious money and the product won't be ready anytime soon; yet if it looks like Civ7 will simply fail as it currently is, it might be worth trying.
Anyway, they really should have researched the target audience better, but it's neither the first nor the last time this happens to a company.

I don't know, but era transitions and civ changes seem to be a core part of Civ 7's design. I haven't played Civ 7 myself, so I could be wrong, but it seems like this would be a fundamental redesign, making it effectively a different game. It runs the risk of alienating those who like Civ 7 now. I suspect a better approach would be to iterate on the current setup, reworking, improving and polishing systems to make the game as good as it could be.

 

[UWHabs]

I don't know, but era transitions and civ changes seem to be a core part of Civ 7's design. I haven't played Civ 7 myself, so I could be wrong, but it seems like this would be a fundamental redesign, making it effectively a different game. It runs the risk of alienating those who like Civ 7 now. I suspect a better approach would be to iterate on the current setup, reworking, improving and polishing systems to make the game as good as it could be.

Yeah, it could work, but making a change that potentially alienates the (few) customers who already enjoy a game, to potentially chase after people who have maybe already made up their mind they don't like it, isn't necessarily going to be a winning strategy.

I do think they have enough pushback that offering a "Classic Civ Mode" option might be a winning strategy, sure. People who like the transitions can play, and those who don't can opt for the classic mode. Yes, it would take more effort to support both modes, since presumably you would want to keep adding and iterating on both versions, and making sure that there's still a level of balance in both scenarios that it doesn't break the game.

And maybe based on that, the direction that civ 8 takes could change.

 

[NickTheGreek!]

I don't know, but era transitions and civ changes seem to be a core part of Civ 7's design. I haven't played Civ 7 myself, so I could be wrong, but it seems like this would be a fundamental redesign, making it effectively a different game. It runs the risk of alienating those who like Civ 7 now. I suspect a better approach would be to iterate on the current setup, reworking, improving and polishing systems to make the game as good as it could be.

I consider it pretty much impossible at this point to just remove era transitions and civ changes, they are core game mechanics. This is the game that we have, this is CIV7 for better or worse(i came to like/not mind the changes after playing for a while). Working to make it the best it can be is the only viable option i think.

 

[VGT]

I do think they have enough pushback that offering a "Classic Civ Mode" option might be a winning strategy, sure. People who like the transitions can play, and those who don't can opt for the classic mode. Yes, it would take more effort to support both modes, since presumably you would want to keep adding and iterating on both versions, and making sure that there's still a level of balance in both scenarios that it doesn't break the game.

While this is most likely only possibility to win back my affection for the franchise and initially I really wished they would add classic mode (I even have post here on the forum somewhere where I mentioned that classic mode should be the default and what we have now should be scenarios, but I'll take my small win and accept it other way around), now I became a bit wary of this. Because there is increased cost to maintain two complex gameplay rulesets. Not only strictly financial, but also balancing, having it bug-free and probably other I can't figure out now. Increased complexity might result in both experiences being subpar.

I think what I'm trying to say is that even if at some point there is big announcement "classic mode is back" - I'm not immediately back to being a believer. I will most likely still not buy on first sight, I will carefully look first if those things I'm worried about are indeed there and it might not bring me back at all. So it's still risky strategy.

 

[Civinator]

I really wished they would add classic mode (I even have post here on the forum somewhere where I mentioned that classic mode should be the default and what we have now should be scenarios

This would be an updated Civ 3 Conquests (C3C) with an improved conquests campaign, where the single conquest-scenarios are better connected, than only by point scores for each conquest and the final point score for all conquests in addition.

 

[aelf]

Maybe Firaxis could release a "classic Civ option" expansion, which would still allow for the current state of Civ7 but also give you the option to go "classic" where civs won't be changing randomly with era nor have leaders from completely unrelated civs. And test the waters with it. If it does well, they can entirely remove the current set-up in a follow-up expansion. Of course such a plan will cost serious money and the product won't be ready anytime soon; yet if it looks like Civ7 will simply fail as it currently is, it might be worth trying.
Anyway, they really should have researched the target audience better, but it's neither the first nor the last time this happens to a company.

You seem to misunderstand how Civ7 works. The civs don't change randomly. In fact, the change is constrained by history or geography or specific gameplay conditions. In fact, there are some players who use mods to unlock civ changes so they're not constrained.

And have you heard of the parable where asking what customers want before the invention of the automobile would result in the development of faster horses instead? You can't rely on just customer research to develop a product, especially for an artistic medium like this.

I have no desire to read this whole thread, but the last few posts have missed the keynote section from Econ 101.

Firaxis behaves as a monopoly. They’re the only ones that can sell Civilization. You could argue that they supply “strategy video games” in a more competitive market, but the discussion here already treats them as a monopoly. Maybe it’s a fun toy problem to think of what price Civ would need to be selling at to bring more Civ knockoffs to market, but that’s beyond the scope of what economics the State of Georgia mandated I learn. What everyone is trying to describe is what price should a monopoly set to maximize revenue.

Without price discrimination, that’s the price where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. But Civ is a software product, marginal costs are extremely low! That would imply the price would be extremely low, but it isn’t! Why?!

In the scenario above, consumer surplus is very high. Think about how happy you are when you buy the anthologies. You would be willing to pay much more, but you pay a lot less. Yay!

But won’t someone think of the poor shareholders? There’s all these people willing to pay much more money, but you’re not charging them that much! That’s so much lost producer surplus!

Thankfully, software and gaming companies have gotten very good at price discrimination, or finding clever ways to charge different people different prices. Gimmicks like Steam Sales, prelaunch early access, and limited editions are all exist to find ways to charge higher prices to customers willing to pay a higher price.

So really the question should be why aren’t they charging even more? Clearly lots of people were willing to pay for the Founder’s Edition and are happy about it. So why not go further? I’d easily cough up the cash for Ben Franklin skins. So why is Firaxis working on adding things for the consumers with much lower willingness-to-pay and not milking my wallet with Beach Day Benny? Do they hate their shareholders?

Obviously this is tongue-in-cheek, but it’s a good mental model for how a lot of games work, and why we see more GAAS and gimmicks like that. You might not like it, but not liking it isn’t the same as not willing to pay!

Firaxis is not operating under monopolistic conditions, but rather monopolistic competition. So you got that wrong right off the bat.

I also think there's a problem with saying that the marginal cost of software is necessarily extremely low. I would say that it usually isn't, unless you're able to sell nearly unlimited copies. Now, I don't know finance and accounting as much as I do economics, but I suspect the marginal cost of software has to be derived partly from development costs rather than ignoring that part and only taking into account distribution costs.

 

[Kyriakos]

This would be an updated Civ 3 Conquests (C3C) with an improved conquests campaign, where the single conquest-scenarios are better connected, than only by point scores for each conquest and the final point score for all conquests in addition.

It likely is too late already to roll back (even in steps) the traits which made Civ7 so controversial. But I like your idea ^^

 

[Civinator]

It likely is too late already to roll back (even in steps) the traits which made Civ7 so controversial. But I like your idea ^^

This is only the consequence of VGT´s thoughts.

 

[Chiyo]

And have you heard of the parable where asking what customers want before the invention of the automobile would result in the development of faster horses instead? You can't rely on just customer research to develop a product, especially for an artistic medium like this.

This does not make much sense. It is a quote by Henry Ford and he sold automobiles and not horses. That is why he did not have disappointed customers. Had someone ordered a horse to put it in his barn or participate in horse races with he would probably have been very angry for getting an automobile. That is why the new product got a completely new name. The problem with the new Firaxis game is that it is called Civilization 7 despite throwing over board several basic Civ ingredients. Had they published a new game "Cities" or whatever they called it the expectations would have been very different and less customers would have been disappointed.

 

[Civinator]

Had they published a new game "Cities" or whatever they called it the expectations would have been very different and less customers would have been disappointed.

You mean "Rulers" instead of "Civilization".

 

[Leucarum]

So in terms of rolling things back. I think the easiest first step for firaxis would be to add more game options for how much gets carried over between ages. If players want more continuous gameplay, they could toggle it so more remains the same between iterations.

Mods already exist to add every civ to every age, albeit with some features not working. So an option to "transcend" your civ at least, keeping it without age-specific uniques, instead of picking a new one, feels do-able too.

That feels like quite a lot of the way towards a "classic" civ experience to me... And everything is optional so you still keep the people who like Civ7 on board.

 

[GeneralZift]

I'd definitely be on board for the transcended idea if the transcended Civilisations had some simple but unique and strong bonus that they could carry into the next era / eras.

For example you wouldn't get the bonuses of unique civics and unique units if you transcend, but perhaps Exploration Romans would get a boost to assimilating Distant Lands people, in reference.

So they'd only get one boost but it could be an interesting and unexpected boost just to give them some reason to transcend. Have you ever wondered how Ancient Egyptians would be in the Modern Era?

 

[aelf]

This does not make much sense. It is a quote by Henry Ford and he sold automobiles and not horses. That is why he did not have disappointed customers. Had someone ordered a horse to put it in his barn or participate in horse races with he would probably have been very angry for getting an automobile. That is why the new product got a completely new name. The problem with the new Firaxis game is that it is called Civilization 7 despite throwing over board several basic Civ ingredients. Had they published a new game "Cities" or whatever they called it the expectations would have been very different and less customers would have been disappointed.

I have difficulty parsing this. It doesn't seem to make much sense to compare Civ players with buyers of race horses but reject a comparison with horse buyers in general.

It's the concept that matters: Consumers are not necessarily good at imagining a better product. They have needs, but to say those needs somehow map exactly to what previous Civ games are like is problematic. In the first place, it ignores all the innovations and massive changes that have happened between previous iterations. And secondly, previous Civ games can mostly still be bought and played. We don't need a new Civ that's like some previous iteration because the need for that has been filled.

 

[Leucarum]

I'd definitely be on board for the transcended idea if the transcended Civilisations had some simple but unique and strong bonus that they could carry into the next era / eras.

For example you wouldn't get the bonuses of unique civics and unique units if you transcend, but perhaps Exploration Romans would get a boost to assimilating Distant Lands people, in reference.

So they'd only get one boost but it could be an interesting and unexpected boost just to give them some reason to transcend. Have you ever wondered how Ancient Egyptians would be in the Modern Era?

Most Civ uniques only have a couple of things which don't fit later eras... I think it's mainly unique units expiring, and some of the yields could use scaling to still be relevant.

 

[Siptah]

I'd definitely be on board for the transcended idea if the transcended Civilisations had some simple but unique and strong bonus that they could carry into the next era / eras.

For example you wouldn't get the bonuses of unique civics and unique units if you transcend, but perhaps Exploration Romans would get a boost to assimilating Distant Lands people, in reference.

So they'd only get one boost but it could be an interesting and unexpected boost just to give them some reason to transcend. Have you ever wondered how Ancient Egyptians would be in the Modern Era?

Most simple solution: create 50 unassociated traditions. If you transcend, you gain 2 random ones for free. This way, it would also work backwards for modern civs in antiquity.

 

[Leucarum]

Most simple solution: create 50 unassociated traditions. If you transcend, you gain 2 random ones for free. This way, it would also work backwards for modern civs in antiquity.

Maybe tie them to legacy paths. You always unlock 4 "dark age traditions" you can choose from, but you can unlock up to 3 alternative choices by getting down each legacy path.

 

[trev1972]

I love some of the ideas, are we absolutely sure however that console sales have not compensated for the apparently disappointing performance in PC sales? The switch/switch 2 market is huge for example as id PS5

 

[Ornen]

I love some of the ideas, are we absolutely sure however that console sales have not compensated for the apparently disappointing performance in PC sales? The switch/switch 2 market is huge for example as id PS5

PC/steam market has grown dramatically — nearly tripled — in the past 10 years. so I’m totally unamenable to the idea that consoles are eating into steam sales