Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Askia Muhammad]

It's just weirdly unfinished.

I'd like the ages if they were 1.75-2.25x longer, not using (the especially unbalanced as of now) game speed modifiers. If there were actual constant narrative events with choose your own adventure type choices and alternatives that affected diplomacy. If the crisis was something you could exercise more influence over, either mastering it, taking advantage of it, getting swamped by it (with appropriate "dark age" benefits next age).

Where each age had 1.5 the tech tree in the sense of you're only going to use 66% of the tech tree any playthrough, so it's always different.

Where each age's progression works fundamentally differently (maybe a medieval age with a limited tech tree but a massive culture tree with a huge religion branch).

Take the shell of Civ 7 and do what I said, and it would be really fun.

We're nitpicking the design vision and granted I think we've done a great job of putting the je ne sais quo of design into words, but at the end of the day, I think 7 is just underbaked.

We've proposed ways you could "pimp my ride" with the beater we've been given, without going back and redoing development. Still, the issue is the game is hollow and shallow. And a lot of the feature suite ends up making the game experience worse. Like crises.

I don't turn crises off because they just feel like the whole point of the game. Why have ages and civ switching and a close to an age with no crisis? They're integral to the experience for me. There's not enough gained by turning them off, where civ 7 underneath them is still fun. It's just, still boring, so I play with crisis as frustrating as it is. Oh, and, I'm not playing anymore anyway.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around accepting the idea of the age changes with narrative events and crisis as a scenario like approach, but then the product we got being so inadequate to the premise. My mind is trying to settle on, "What would have been at least the bare minimum 'more' that Civ 7 needed for this concept to basically work".

Even so, the concept does not accommodate across the ages storytelling or min maxing. I suppose it could. You could bridge between ages better.

1. Wars in past ages are referenced in narrative events and lead to bonuses, celebrations, anniversaries in later ages.
2. There's variability in the legacy buildings. Wonders related to trade in cities with lots of trade routes look different and get different yields in later eras, otherwise they decline and become ruin. Same for buildings. Some buildings turn to farmland with ruins 3d models.
3. Great works! Good god, why don't great works cross ages? They're science, religious, then cultural. There's no reason Modern couldn't accommodate all three as they fill different domains. An association between a great work and a given building can boost the effect the more ages this association exists.
4. Ethnic groups. Egyptians lived in Ptolemaic Egypt next to Hebrews and Greeks. Modern Copts lived next to Arabs. You could be the Mughal Empire but still have Persian festivals.
5. Leader titles and or palaces. What a miss! If you had a palace like Civ III, then it would visually express continuity across ages.
6. Graphs, victory screen timeline maps. Showing your empire growing over time, in spite of age changes.

Anyway, I've made my point.

If Civ 7 is none of this because it wants to be a tight, balanced competitive game with great AI, well, it's none of those things.

It's just not finished. It's a failed development. It's not necessarily the concept, although sticking to the tried and true formula would have left less room for error.

I agree with many of your points and I’d love to see graphs and post game summaries make a return. I think something I missed even in Civ 6 was a replay of the map as the game progressed.

I think your ideas regarding ethnic identities are great and should replace the traditional loyalty mechanic in 6. We’ve had a similar system in Civ 4 where tiles were a certain percentage of differing cultures.

Others have mentioned Ed Beach saying that when the era change happens we need to imagine a certain number of years has passed and the new Civ we select is essentially the result of the random crises and unspecified time frame that has passed.

For me, I think those actual crisis points - the times in a game where massive political, economic, militaristic upheaval are occurring, are the most interesting elements of gameplay.

If we really must stick with eras, id like to see the first major DLC expansion tackle those periods specifically and actually add them as playable portions of the game. Fill them in potentially with some mid way technologies or what have you but actually make the crisis systems playable experiences not just passive +\- effects to yields.

For example, perhaps the game calculates that civilizations with X government have struggled with happiness through this age. The resulting crisis that happens could result in an increasing level of unhappiness within empires that have that government type, perhaps eventually resulting in civil wars.

It’s a much easier ask to have players jump from a world torn asunder by an epidemic of civil war/resistance to a new civilization than an arbitrary turn counter ending me losing populations because “well the game claims I’m living through a plague epidemic”

 

[Gori the Grey]

I absolutely think letting players stop after 150 turns instead of 400 affects play time.

Right, but we have to keep in mind that play time is not directly consequential in a game like Civ. If you buy the game for $90, Firaxis doesn't care if you play it for 2 hours or for 2000 hours.

Play time is probably indirectly consequential (whether you will buy upcoming DLCs is heavily dependent on ongoing play). But even there, there's not a X-hours translates to Y-dollars kind of relationship.

Edit: some of our discussion here makes me think to myself that older versions of Civ had/have for me two separate forms of ongoing impetus to play. "One more turn" is one of them (will I get that wonder before any other civ does?) But then there is also a strong one-game-into-the-next impetus. So I will fail in one game, attribute it to insufficient attention to one of the game's subsystems, and fire up a new game to see if I can do better. ("This time I'm really going to pause over every newly-issued CS quest and consider whether I could fulfill it, dangnabbit." [Civ V].)

 

[MutilationWave]

Right, but we have to keep in mind that play time is not directly consequential in a game like Civ. If you buy the game for $90, Firaxis doesn't care if you play it for 2 hours or for 2000 hours.

Play time is probably indirectly consequential (whether you will buy upcoming DLCs is heavily dependent on ongoing play). But even there, there's not a X-hours translates to Y-dollars kind of relationship.

I wonder how many people are like me. I might leave the game running all day (and night sometimes) long. Playing some here and there. Do some housework, play some more, look at the forums, play some more, etc.

Obviously this is inflating the player numbers.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, you need to stop inflating those numbers.

 

[KayAU]

It seems obvious now that Firaxis gained a lot of good will with how Civ VI was handled.

The real test now is seeing how well the first Civ VII standalone DLC sells.

This is something I've been thinking about. I think the initial interest for a new entry is to a significant extent dependent on how people feel about the previous one. There are many factors, but it seems like that would be a major one, and I was honestly surprised to see how low the initial player numbers for Civ 7 were.

Civ 7 started at about 85k players, which seems good, especially compared to the current numbers. However, Civ 6 started at a whopping 162k players, almost twice as many. I wonder which factors went into that. The price was surely a big part of it. The negative buzz surrounding things like Civ switching or Denuvo will probably have influenced it, although I don't know how widespread these concerns were outside places like CFC. But could it also be that people were not as happy with Civ 6 as we might think?

 

[tman2000]

It’s a much easier ask to have players jump from a world torn asunder by an epidemic of civil war/resistance to a new civilization than an arbitrary turn counter ending me losing populations because “well the game claims I’m living through a plague epidemic”

Someone else mentioned this for civ switching. Like it’s based on events.

Switching a civ should be either the result of having triggered a golden age or being swamped by a crisis. And if you don’t switch civs you should get bonuses on your current civ like genuine legacy bonuses.

Anyway, golden ages are replaced by celebrations so…

 

[Nares]

I haven't played Civ7, but based on Civ5's release and base Civ6, and understanding that Firaxis/2K were attempting to break harder into the console market, I'm not surprised by the state of Civ7. Stripping down game mechanics to release them later has been going on since at least Civ5. The interface seems particularly minimalist to better accommodate console players. None of this should be surprising. The game itself seems like it wanted to be one of the off-beat titles, like Alpha Centauri or Beyond Earth, rather than the newest addition to the prime franchise.

The real takeaway is that Firaxis/2K has left a large opening in the market for someone else to step into. It would be a great time for Creative Assembly to make their own attempt at bridging the gap between Total War and Civilization.

 

[99-percent-sure]

I wonder how many people are like me. I might leave the game running all day (and night sometimes) long. Playing some here and there. Do some housework, play some more, look at the forums, play some more, etc.

Obviously this is inflating the player numbers.

Which only happens with Civ 7. No one leaves any other version of Civ running for long stretches because they're in the habit of going back to it sporadically throughout their day. Who ever heard of such a thing?

 

[CliffCo]

Would you call modern engagement-based design good though?

Freemium / F2P games are built on (aggressively maximising) hours spent with the game open (not even necessarily playing it). I'm not sure that's healthy (especially for games with an upfront cost). And it's not just F2P games that have started doing this.

Having multiple stopping points is fine. If you want to keep playing, you will. If you want to play another Antiquity game, you can. I've been doing that a lot until Firaxis get the pacing better for Exploration and Modern.

Most F2P games at least on mobile devices can be a money pit and end up costing far more than the $2-300 dolars we can end up spending on a Civ game after you include all the DLC. I've played several over the years and they make most of their money from content you purchase to make the game more enjoyable.

 

[CliffCo]

I don't think a psychological off-ramp is going to meaurably diminish the one more turn effect.

Obviously not much in the way of proof, but the amount of outcry over "one more turn" is evidence that players a) get there and b) want it.

I played over 4,000 hrs of Civ6 and i never once played one more turn, i found i finished most of my games as i wanted the stats to be recorded in the hall of fame, something that i feel is badly needed for 7.
There's also been an outcry for auto explore but it is something i very rarely used as i didn't like having them killed off by barbs.

Even before the game was officially released i've felt that there has been far more negative feedback than the game actually deserves.

 

[CliffCo]

Which only happens with Civ 7. No one leaves any other version of Civ running for long stretches because they're in the habit of going back to it sporadically throughout their day. Who ever heard of such a thing?

I don't even do it with Civ7, when i need to walk the dogs or cook dinner i shut the game down completely as i want my hrs played to be accurate. i've been this way with every game i've played not just Civ.

 

[firadin]

This is something I've been thinking about. I think the initial interest for a new entry is to a significant extent dependent on how people feel about the previous one. There are many factors, but it seems like that would be a major one, and I was honestly surprised to see how low the initial player numbers for Civ 7 were.

Civ 7 started at about 85k players, which seems good, especially compared to the current numbers. However, Civ 6 started at a whopping 162k players, almost twice as many. I wonder which factors went into that. The price was surely a big part of it. The negative buzz surrounding things like Civ switching or Denuvo will probably have influenced it, although I don't know how widespread these concerns were outside places like CFC. But could it also be that people were not as happy with Civ 6 as we might think?

Civ6 launched all at once on a Friday. Civ7 launched in two parts (pre-orders got early access) on a Tuesday. That must have had a huge effect on its release peak. If Civ7 had a hugely successful launch we likely still would be saying that its peak was significantly below Civ6's but its staying power was larger relative to peak.

 

[KayAU]

Civ6 launched all at once on a Friday. Civ7 launched in two parts (pre-orders got early access) on a Tuesday. That must have had a huge effect on its release peak. If Civ7 had a hugely successful launch we likely still would be saying that its peak was significantly below Civ6's but its staying power was larger relative to peak.

Good point, although I would hope that most of the people who paid for "advanced access" were still playing 5 days later.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Someone else mentioned this for civ switching. Like it’s based on events.

Switching a civ should be either the result of having triggered a golden age or being swamped by a crisis. And if you don’t switch civs you should get bonuses on your current civ like genuine legacy bonuses.

Anyway, golden ages are replaced by celebrations so…

Yes, or perhaps the benefit of achieving a golden age is immunity or mitigation of said disasters? A dark age would mean intensifying them?

I didn’t personally like their decision in Civ 6 to avoid making dark ages too harsh. I said it years ago and I’ll say it again, I think dark ages should have been easier to avoid but more punishing if you fell into one. The dramatic ages mode was a nice touch but the AI could never cope and I’d like to see more than just the loss of cities - maybe you experience reduced yields but keep all your cities or something else you have to work around.

I think their reasoning for not wanting to make dark ages punishing in Civ 6 no longer applies in Civ 7 as I feel personally punished whenever the age changes even if I did well.

 

[tman2000]

I haven't played Civ7, but based on Civ5's release and base Civ6, and understanding that Firaxis/2K were attempting to break harder into the console market, I'm not surprised by the state of Civ7. Stripping down game mechanics to release them later has been going on since at least Civ5. The interface seems particularly minimalist to better accommodate console players. None of this should be surprising. The game itself seems like it wanted to be one of the off-beat titles, like Alpha Centauri or Beyond Earth, rather than the newest addition to the prime franchise.

The real takeaway is that Firaxis/2K has left a large opening in the market for someone else to step into. It would be a great time for Creative Assembly to make their own attempt at bridging the gap between Total War and Civilization.

I'm making a video of just a complete mad, bonkers, unhinged vision for Civ 8. One idea I have is that you "paint" where you want units to line up with "advance to", "retreat to" and "defend" commands. Every turn, the units will try and fulfill the commands but won't necessarily complete them. So you can reverse an advance before it's complete, and there's a step by step cadence to the battle, but it's still turn based. Simultaneous battle resolution I suppose.

The idea is that the game kind of auto-resolves situations like if you paint cavalry to harass an area, and units there start retreating, they will automatically swoop in to sweep up.

Either way, the idea was inspired by the Army Commander system in Civ 7. My thought was to never actually unstack units from the commander and instead you paint battle orders and the units in the commander just sort of line up appropriately.

 

[tman2000]

Yes, or perhaps the benefit of achieving a golden age is immunity or mitigation of said disasters? A dark age would mean intensifying them?

This is why a Civ 4 style ethnic layer (that incorporates independent peoples layered over civ territory as well) would be cool. You could lose almost all your cities, but when a new civilization "arises" your ethnic layer would function as a loyalty feature to restore cities to you.

 

[fantsu]

I think Civ VII could be free to play just like Fortnite.
Players could use money to unlock leaders and such. Even Fortnite failed when it cost money to play, even it was higher in quality as an tower defense game.

 

[Xur]

I think Civ VII could be free to play just like Fortnite.
Players could use money to unlock leaders and such. Even Fortnite failed when it cost money to play, even it was higher in quality as an tower defense game.

That’s the wrong target audience. Their goal is pvp and you need a large playerbase for that.

I would actually be even more turned off if it went free to play. Gameplay would be even more focused/skewed towards DLC and potentially p2w.

It would probably also kill modding because they would have to lock it down hard, in order to maintain that DLC model.

 

[kaspergm]

That’s the wrong target audience. Their goal is pvp and you need a large playerbase for that.

I would actually be even more turned off if it went free to play. Gameplay would be even more focused/skewed towards DLC and potentially p2w.

It would probably also kill modding because they would have to lock it down hard, in order to maintain that DLC model.

Yes I agree, Civ going free to play is the absolutely LAST thing we want to happen!

 

[fantsu]

That’s the wrong target audience. Their goal is pvp and you need a large playerbase for that.

I would actually be even more turned off if it went free to play. Gameplay would be even more focused/skewed towards DLC and potentially p2w.

It would probably also kill modding because they would have to lock it down hard, in order to maintain that DLC model.

Games like Rise of Kingdoms is just an game that makes things better and for free. Sure it has only fifteen free civilizations, but they are much better designed historically and much deeper in mechanics.
Civ VII is similar even it is inferior in design.

What kills VII is its absurd cost.
What makes them fix it if no-one plays it?
By going f2p it would draw in some players, and surely some of those would be willing to buy planned DLC with small amount of money. And it would keep the developers interested spending some time with an actual design and pour some love and flavor in it instead of rushing copy/paste "unique" units to meet the deadlines.