Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

I think it’s clear that he has always struggled with mental health and the negative reaction to Civ VII in his community has made it harder for him to create content. I don’t think it’s correct to point a finger at the community generally.
 
I just rewatched starting at 11min, and it seems he is almost certainly talking about his own fans there and his (self-described) parasocial relationship with them that takes place in his video comments? I didn’t see anything about “the community” in a sense that would include anything like CFC or other fan sites. Maybe I missed it though, was there something specifically about communities other than his fan community?

When I watched the whole video before, the main point seemed to be talking about his disease that robs him of his motivation, and explaining why he hasnt been making Patreon videos of various games, and how he has been disappointed in his own fans who he thought “got him.”
 
I think it’s clear that he has always struggled with mental health and the negative reaction to Civ VII in his community has made it harder for him to create content.

I’ll watch the video again and try to find a transcript.
 
I am realising it feels sort of dirty to me to speculate on a real person’s mental health and who they see as their own community in service of winning points in some subjective argument about a game, so I think I’m going to pass entirely on this sub-topic. I’ll just wish him the best in case he does see CFC as part of the Potato Mcwhiskey community and actually is reading, and send him best wishes so he can get through his troubles, which I’ve also had and empathise with.
 
Last edited:
I think 'the Civ community' is an amorphous crowd within which there are overlapping domains. I don't think it makes sense to conceive of his community as being exclusive from other channels, including CFC, reddit, and others. But from his perspective, it makes sense that he calls it "his" community, as that's who he interacts with and he's also talking about parasocial relationships, which are personal to him.
 
Personally i've never been interested in content creator videos and can probably count on one my fingers the amount of videos i've watched one all the way through in my lifetime, so they're not something i will miss.
 
Last edited:
I used to watch a lot of Civ creators when I was new to the game, particularly Civ5 Yogscast, and then later True Earth AI only, and then Potato playing Civ6.

It's really nice because it teaches you the game in a fairly intuitive way, and you get to understand the thought processes behind them before you dive in.

That being said, I'm finding myself completely avoiding Civ content creators over this unmistakable feeling that they all have agendas when it comes to content creation.

I trust Potato's judgement and respect when his opinion differs to mine, but I find it disingenuous to suggest that the game is in a good state when it's not.

It's of course not just him... Just people putting out these click bait titles "Civ fixed everything" and it's the most minor patch of all time. Really dissuaded me from watching most Civ content.

Again, all that being said. Just because you like Civ6 over Civ7 doesn't give you a free permit to harass Potato over the game he chooses to play and promote. You can just choose not to watch.
 
Has Potato said the game was in a good state? I haven't been paying much attention, but in this video he said that Firaxis messed up, and that Civ 7 should have been released in Early Access. He also said that he enjoyed the game, but I didn't get the impression that he was trying to smooth over anything.
 
It is very sad that someone should be distressed over the state of a game. Hopefully this will pass. I am sure that some of the developers are struggling with the reception of the game as well. This is one of the hard parts of life. God bless them and lift them up.
 
His last video was “Update 1.2.0 for Civ 7 is yet another BANGER patch” but I don’t think that speaks to anything but what the algorithm expects of content creators. It’s not a personal failing on his behalf.

He’s a good guy even if I was never a fan, and I wish him nothing but the best.
 
I guess the difficulty for Firaxis is that being good and being good enough aren't neccessarily the same thing...
Not quite, but almost. It's expectation vs reality. I don't think people had unreasonable expectations. If civ7 was called something else than civ7, then there would be no expectations and reviews might be better and sales would be worse. Civ7 sold well because of previous games and people had expectations of a new civ game - not because people wanted era changes and changing civs.

Imagine if I buy a VW Golf every time they make a new model. I'm excited for the new Golf and pre-ordered the car. When I get it, it looks and drives like a Peugeot 308 - just more expensive. I'd be upset. My expectation, based on my historical experience with the product, was not met.

It's why there's a thread about civ not feeling like a civ game. Like there would be articles about the new Golf not feeling like a Golf. It's so basic, that it's sad that people can't see this.
 
The video is terribly sad, but I watched it through because it's also incredibly courageous. He's had depression from a young age. He's dealing with it in all the good ways that one would want to see: counselling, medication, exercise, even this candid talking-through of his present struggles.

Regarding the Civ VII part of it specifically. The state of Civ VII complicates matters for him. He says in the video that his favorite thing to do is just make a Let's Play. When the fanbase liked the game (VI), they therefore liked his Let's Plays, and said so in the comments, and that gave him a lift. Now, for the people who don't like the game, his publicly liking it (which is the starting assumption of a Let's Play video) means that he gets their abuse: that he's just shilling for Firaxis, downplaying what they think are the faults in the game. So now the bulk of the comments that he reads bring him down rather than lifting him up.

In my (unprofessional) opinion, he needs to do two things. First, at least for a while, he needs to do what some streamers do and hire someone to filter out the toxic comments on his behalf.

Then I wonder if the following might work, a slight re-casting of the basic frame of his Let's Plays, in the form of "Here's the fun that can be found in a Civ VII game, even in its present state, if you want it." He can acknowledge that the game has flaws. He says at one point that he himself has a variety of criticisms of the game, and even means to do videos on those criticisms. Anyway, acknowledge that the game has flaws, but say "here's how you play around the flaws and have fun anyway." So maybe it's map-settings, or civ chosen, or opponent civs chosen, or self-imposed playstyle that let players have a kind of fun (and then use the Let's Play to demonstrate what that kind of fun is).

That would eliminate from his audience those who simply don't like the game, because his starting framing is that he's doing this only for those people who want it. It draws a distinction between him and Firaxis: I'm no shill; I acknowledging the game's flaws; I'm just showing you how to play against them so that you can still have fun with the game. It gets him back to the thing that used to bring him joy: exhibiting the joy he takes in playing a game. It becomes a little meta-: I'm not just showing you game strategies; I'm showing you strategies for having fun with the game even despite some of its flaws. But that's all in the framing; from that point on, he just does what he's always done: play a game and talk about it.

This would have the effect of dividing his audience in 3: people who like the game so little that they wouldn't even watch a video of him playing against its flaws (and he can now completely ignore that group); people who like the game and like his videos; and people who don't like the game, but could be drawn into playing it if he gave them this method of doing so.

Hope he quickly gets through this tough stage. Since he's been struggling so long, he's acutely aware of exactly what he's facing, extremely detailed and articulate about the way depression sandbags him, and that should be some help.

He needs to take Ireland's housing situation off of his own shoulders. But that's something that's easy for an outsider to say, and no doubt harder for him to do.
 
Last edited:
In this thread: Harumph; Civ VII is yet another installment where the AI opponents can't play the game well enough to provide a meaningful challenge. :sad:
Also in this thread: AI is on the verge of taking over the world!:run:
First of all, they don't try and maximize the AI in Civ games. Second, no one has tried to incorporate the new AI in the design of a civ game. As far as I know anyway.

With Civ IV BTS Firaxis did make some efforts to teach the AI to do amphibious invasions of distant continents. I even saw an AI stack of battleships, destroyers, carriers full of planes and loaded transports. Of course, the AI failed to reduce the defenses with bombardment and the planes bombed irrelevant targets and the transports landed troops adjacent to the city target instead on directly on the city itself. Which meant that the whole attack amounted to nothing. But it proved that the AI can be taught if someone really wants to make it a priority.

I think that capable AI is just around the corner. We will likely go from incompetent AI directly to unbeatable AI.

Of course, others still hold that the AI can't and will never learn to path find. So, it goes.
 
I think the crux of the problem is that he's taken Firaxis' money, so now no matter his opinion, people are going to assume whatever he says is given a good lick of polish to sell it.

He would not be having the same toxicity problems he is having if he didn't engage in transactions that lead to accusations of bias over what he's reviewing. It's easy to see the cash and think it's easy money, but there's a price that comes with it, and unfortunately that is your audiences respect for your word.

I wish him the best too, and I also hope some wisdom can come from this for all the YouTube community - don't take money from a developer to market a game for them unless you want to be seen as in bed with them, for all the boons and problems that can bring.
 
I think the crux of the problem is that he's taken Firaxis' money, so now no matter his opinion, people are going to assume whatever he says is given a good lick of polish to sell it.
I think this is a fundamentally bad faith assumption folks should learn to, well, un-learn. It was (originally) rooted in a good sense of awareness for consumers, but the parasocial nature of the Internet and the fact that we are, ultimately, discussing opinions about a video game end up twisting the principle.

You could say "his coverage at the time when he was paid to do X was a part of Firaxis' marketing strategy". And you can judge that historical coverage however you like.

But then assuming that anything he subsequently ever makes is somehow flawed is a mistake in of itself. It infers - without evidence - that Firaxis are continuing to pay him for positive opinions. It's a shallow and naive attempt at looking pro-consumer, when actually it's just being anti-Civ VII.

Which, again, is no issue. The issue is tying a streamer's opinion to being paid for it.
 
I think this is a fundamentally bad faith assumption folks should learn to, well, un-learn. It was (originally) rooted in a good sense of awareness for consumers, but the parasocial nature of the Internet and the fact that we are, ultimately, discussing opinions about a video game end up twisting the principle.

You could say "his coverage at the time when he was paid to do X was a part of Firaxis' marketing strategy". And you can judge that historical coverage however you like.

But then assuming that anything he subsequently ever makes is somehow flawed is a mistake in of itself. It infers - without evidence - that Firaxis are continuing to pay him for positive opinions. It's a shallow and naive attempt at looking pro-consumer, when actually it's just being anti-Civ VII.

Which, again, is no issue. The issue is tying a streamer's opinion to being paid for it.
Firaxis is not paying him, but it PAYS for him to say nice things about Civ7, because that is his future brand for the next couple of years, the way he makes his money.
So he might cover his issues and complaints lightly but it'll be coated in a large amount of 'looking on the bright side' of everything.

First of all, they don't try and maximize the AI in Civ games. Second, no one has tried to incorporate the new AI in the design of a civ game. As far as I know anyway.
It's not like a good 4X AI is impossible. It certainly has to be possible. It's not like a Civ game is the pinnacle of playable games, that only a human can play - after all AI has mastered tons of complicated games when the right tools are used to design it.

It's just that there hasn't been the right amount of effort gone into making a strong enough AI as there should've been.
Ideally it should be far more because the AI is frankly half the game. In MP the enemy players make up all the interesting aspects of playing the game.

They should spend less time recrafting the mechanics of a series they know everyone already enjoys and more time on Polishing the aspects that drag the game to boredom.
HINT: it's not the gameplay, it's the AI.
 
Firaxis is not paying him, but it PAYS for him to say nice things about Civ7, because that is his future brand for the next couple of years, the way he makes his money.
This, again, is an assumption you're making to rationalise away positive opinions he may in fact sincerely hold. It's also a completely separate point to the one I was responding to.

Yes, content creators portrayed content in a certain way to drive channel engagement. But this happens for all types of "ways" of portraying content. There are channels that thrive on negative takes to drive engagement. There are channels that thrive on positive takes. There are channels that aim for neutral / information-only kind of a "style". Most / all content creators develop a personal "style" over time. It's a part of being a face on a screen that others can connect to.

It's a part of the industry that is being a content creator. It doesn't mean that their opinions aren't at the same time honest. Honest or dishonest, information or misinformation - these are separate axes to the tone of any content creator's channel. They intersect, but they don't align 1:1.
 
I'm not really sure you can trust a paid brand spokesman/influencer even if not technically working on the marketing team at the moment, because for them to get paid again they can't share their real opinions on the topic you were paid for if they differ. This is nothing to do with civ or Potato in particular. Someone who works as an influencer for a brand has every incentive to make sure they get paid again in the future, even if they aren't being paid in this very moment. It's one reason I'd never take that payment in the first place. Or do you really think that if he shared negative opinions as soon as his first check cleared that they'd hire him again? Maybe one way to get out of it is to make a public pronouncement that you'll never take a dime from them again, then there's no perverse incentives.

It's literally what brands are buying is influencer credibility, so they can cash in their credibility and convert it into sales. I feel bad for people who's actual self is their own brand, and they sell their own self and their personal credibility to other brands, but again - that's why I'd never take that check in the first place. That's a nightmare, and at the more extreme end of things spokesmen who just sold their credibility have gone to jail for selling their credibility to Bitcoin pump and dump scams. There's no "I was temporarily being controlled by a marketing team and anything I said then should be compartmentalised and be considered as unrelated to any actual opinion I might hold" escape hatch.

I do understand its the nature of the business, I just disagree there's a way to sell your credibility and also keep your credibility fully intact, and you're (as an influencer who sells yourself to brands) probably better off understanding that you can't have your cake and eat it too than expecting others to feel the same. You can sell your credibility and still be a good person, but you can't unsell it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom