Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[firadin]

I knew they bungled the launch a bit but I’d have never guessed that four months later reviews would be trending significantly down (48% overall positive to 36% recently positive). I assumed Firaxis would have done something to try to turn it around by now through more meaningful patches or a giveaway or something. Maybe their best bet is to rush modding tools so the fans can fix it?

Part of the problem with a console focus is large portions of the player base so not benefit from modding

 

[Leucarum]

Part of the problem with a console focus is large portions of the player base so not benefit from modding

I think the best use of modding for firaxis is going to be effectively crowdsourcing market research. They know Civ7 has to change but the player base (and potential player base) is fractured in how they'd like it to change... If they even really know - it's very possible for people to say they like X, Y or Z but then dislike it practice.

Modders can move faster and in more directions than firaxis and it's the perfect opportunity to see what players opt for when given the full smorgasbord of options.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

36% review score re last month figures

Assuming that core and continuing fans of the series would have been more likely to have pre-bought or bought on launch, I expect that more recent reviews are coming from (a) more casual Civ players, (b) new people to the series, or (c) people who waited before posting (or changing) their reviews.

That this group should be more negative than the early reviewers suggests Civ 7 still has a ways to go to find its new fans audience. It was clear that Civ 7 would "leave behind" fans of prior versions. It's long been that way. Civ 5 did not appeal to many Civ 4 fans, Civ 6 lost some Civ 5 fans, etc. But Civ 5 and Civ 6 were very successful because they found new fans who more than replaced the fans who were left behind. Civ 7 still has time to do so, as well, but it doesn't seem like it has, yet.

I'll be curious to see if they try and turn that around during the Steam Summer Sale, or if they keep a low profile this summer while working on the game in preparation for a sales push later in the year.

 

[AD1730]

I knew they bungled the launch a bit but I’d have never guessed that four months later reviews would be trending significantly down (48% overall positive to 36% recently positive). I assumed Firaxis would have done something to try to turn it around by now through more meaningful patches or a giveaway or something. Maybe their best bet is to rush modding tools so the fans can fix it?

I’m highly skeptical of the idea that increased modability can turn around a game that lacks a large following. We’ve seen it with Starfield, where the release of the Creation Kit failed to increase the audience. Mods are built out of passion. Declining review scores and player counts don’t indicate that there is much passion for Civ 7 at the moment.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but anything short of fundamental changes to the civ switching/ages system isn’t going to have much impact. That’s how alienating that mechanic is. I think it’s fair to start asking the question about whether it’s worth alienating those who enjoy that mechanic in order to win back the people who hate it. I’m not sure what the answer to that question is.

 

[Leucarum]

I’m highly skeptical of the idea that increased modability can turn around a game that lacks a large following. We’ve seen it with Starfield, where the release of the Creation Kit failed to increase the audience. Mods are built out of passion. Declining review scores and player counts don’t indicate that there is much passion for Civ 7 at the moment.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but anything short of fundamental changes to the civ switching/ages system isn’t going to have much impact. That’s how alienating that mechanic is. I think it’s fair to start asking the question about whether it’s worth alienating those who enjoy that mechanic in order to win back the people who hate it. I’m not sure what the answer to that question is.

By itself modding won't save Civ7, but it can show them which way would. There's definitely enough of a passionate modding community that we'll get something, just look at the forums here!

Even assuming sweeping changes are needed (I agree with you that it probably is needed) Firaxis would really benefit from seeing which of the numerous ways to implement those changes resonate. Removing ages and civ switching sounds great, but it leaves things wide open for what the resulting game might look like. Modding helps avoid the monkey's paw.

 

[VGT]

I knew they bungled the launch a bit but I’d have never guessed that four months later reviews would be trending significantly down (48% overall positive to 36% recently positive). I assumed Firaxis would have done something to try to turn it around by now through more meaningful patches or a giveaway or something. Maybe their best bet is to rush modding tools so the fans can fix it?

When various discussions about "not posting negative opinions until you try it yourself" happened, I mentioned that free weekend will be interesting in that regard. Only way for me to check if my opinion formed by not playing but only reading/watching stuff about the game is valid or not. Steam Summer Sale is right around the corner and initially I was wondering if this will be the time they will try to do it. There is always influx of players activity on Steam during that time so discount/free weekend during sale might be a good tool to push numbers a bit. But hearing that not that much has changed since the release, I'm not sure anymore if they will go this route right now or it will be better for them to wait more for it (but loose even more momentum in that case).

 

[itix]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but anything short of fundamental changes to the civ switching/ages system isn’t going to have much impact. That’s how alienating that mechanic is. I think it’s fair to start asking the question about whether it’s worth alienating those who enjoy that mechanic in order to win back the people who hate it. I’m not sure what the answer to that question is.

Create 3rd Civ VI expansion and call it a day.

 

[GeneralZift]

Create 3rd Civ VI expansion and call it a day.

No no no they need to make Civ V remastered

 

[aelf]

That this group should be more negative than the early reviewers suggests Civ 7 still has a ways to go to find its new fans audience. It was clear that Civ 7 would "leave behind" fans of prior versions. It's long been that way. Civ 5 did not appeal to many Civ 4 fans, Civ 6 lost some Civ 5 fans, etc. But Civ 5 and Civ 6 were very successful because they found new fans who more than replaced the fans who were left behind.

I think the series has reached saturation point and there just isn't many potential players left to appeal to other than new gamers.

That's part of the reason why I think the series' future is bleak. The 4x market will just become more fractured than ever, with a bigger preponderance for indie titles that appeal to smaller segments and offer various nostalgia baits.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think the series has reached saturation point and there just isn't many potential players left to appeal to other than new gamers.

That's part of the reason why I think the series' future is bleak. The 4x market will just become more fractured than ever, with a bigger preponderance for indie titles that appeal to smaller segments and offer various nostalgia baits.

Until the 4x equivalent of Baldur's Gate 3 comes along, capturing the interest of almost all of the indie game fans as well as lots of casual fans.

 

[Skojardu]

I think the series has reached saturation point and there just isn't many potential players left to appeal to other than new gamers.

That's part of the reason why I think the series' future is bleak. The 4x market will just become more fractured than ever, with a bigger preponderance for indie titles that appeal to smaller segments and offer various nostalgia baits.

I think there may still room for a pastiche Civ 8 which is traditional but follows new systems, but of course the issue is would the hypothetical pastiche Civ be a multiplayer-focused game or a mainly single player game. The single player game would be more difficult because they would need to nail the AI of opposing Civs.

However, due to mods for 4 and 5 still being in development, this pastiche Civ may already be being made in a non-commercial way.

Aelf, do you mean that prior entries are too competitive to allow new entries to flourish EXCEPT on new territories like consoles, so that 7's launch makes sense?

 

[protocol7]

It would have been interesting if they hadn’t rushed a minimum effort DLC-focused product out the door, having done that it’s hard to tell to what extent the reason the game isn’t doing well is because of their choices or the market.

 

[youngsteve]

It would have been interesting if they hadn’t rushed a minimum effort DLC-focused product out the door, having done that it’s hard to tell to what extent the reason the game isn’t doing well is because of their choices or the market.

This is something I can't grasp. It is one thing releasing a shallow game that majority of the playerbase can't stand. It is quite another at the same time to release penny pinching DLC'S which should be in the released game, thus going out of the way to infuriate customers. These producers are geniuses in ineptitude.

 

[Haig]

I've been thinking about mechanics how Civ VII could work as a classic "one leader leads a single civ" -mode, but all the game systems seem to be so tangled together that I am starting to feel it is simply not possible.

It would also mean that the publisher would need to shell out big sums of many to get the rework done and not being too late, so that seems quite unlikely with Take Two publishing.

 

[Leucarum]

I've been thinking about mechanics how Civ VII could work as a classic "one leader leads a single civ" -mode, but all the game systems seem to be so tangled together that I am starting to feel it is simply not possible.

I agree that everything is joined up but I think it does vary somewhat how easily you could rejig things.

Leader/civ mixing/matching strikes me as the hardest to classic-ify. You'd need new leaders and civs, some would be stranded, and I don't hear as much hate for this to be remotely on the cards.

Civ switching I think might be the easiest. Most civs abilities and civics work in any era. If you limit civs to only having unique units/buildings in their special era, you probably only need to do tweaking of some yeilds and updating a handful of civics/abilities... If devs don't do this I'm pretty sure modders will, in very short order, though if firaxis do it I expect it to be a mode rather than replacing civ switching. But... given how this could be done with modding I think this is on the road in one way or another.

Ages seem like they'll be hard to remove, but not so hard to tweak. If you make more millitary units carry over, adjust how much adjacency buildings lose, etc... You can have a bunch of options in place for how sharp era transitions are. Then adding more options for legacy paths is something firaxis alrrady have said they have on their radar. If there's enough variation here you might be able to "build your own" era system. Maybe some adjustments to have more control over when eras end...

It's not quite a classic civ experience, but those changes feel like they would go a long way to closing the gap. And by removing civ switching/making it a game mode Firaxis can point to a sweeping change that might bring doubters back.

 

[Kwami]

I've been thinking about mechanics how Civ VII could work as a classic "one leader leads a single civ" -mode, but all the game systems seem to be so tangled together that I am starting to feel it is simply not possible.

It would also mean that the publisher would need to shell out big sums of many to get the rework done and not being too late, so that seems quite unlikely with Take Two publishing.

I think a much more productive line of thought is to accept the eras and civ switching and then decide what else we can do to improve the game. Because those mechanics aren't going anywhere. And if that's a deal breaker, then so be it.

 

[Leucarum]

I think a much more productive line of thought is to accept the eras and civ switching and then decide what else we can do to improve the game. Because those mechanics aren't going anywhere. And if that's a deal breaker, then so be it.

Improve is going to be very different for different people. Given how divisive civ7 is I think firaxis should be focussing on less how to improve features and rather how to make them as customizable as humanly possible. Whether devs hold the line or do a radical rework they are going to annoy sizeable numbers of players. Customization seems like the best way to thread the needle, and I do think making a "classic-Lite" mode is plausible.

 

[Kwami]

Improve is going to be very different for different people. Given how divisive civ7 is I think firaxis should be focussing on less how to improve features and rather how to make them as customizable as humanly possible. Whether devs hold the line or do a radical rework they are going to annoy sizeable numbers of players. Customization seems like the best way to thread the needle, and I do think making a "classic-Lite" mode is plausible.

I would prefer that the develops continue to improve the game instead of trying to please everyone with half measures that end up not pleasing anyone.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I've been thinking about mechanics how Civ VII could work as a classic "one leader leads a single civ" -mode, but all the game systems seem to be so tangled together that I am starting to feel it is simply not possible.

It would also mean that the publisher would need to shell out big sums of many to get the rework done and not being too late, so that seems quite unlikely with Take Two publishing.

I don't think it's too hard to get something that fits the methodology and satisfies people, but they would have to significantly compromise on their DLC model.

Every Civ in antiquity should get 2 options for the exploration that serve as evolutions for the next era. So Rome would get to choose between Byzantium and the Italian City States for instance. At that juncture they get to choose to keep their colours and city names etc or change to their new ones. Then later each of those 2 gets a choice again. Italian city states could choose between Italy and Argentina or something. Byzantium could choose between Ottomans and Italy. Again you get to choose to keep or switch your names and colours.

There should be some bonuses that carry through the entire game for the Civilizations you picked in earlier eras, and they should stack with your current Civs.

I'd get on board with that, but that's the minimum for basic game for each Civ, not to be sold as dlc

 

[Leucarum]

I would prefer that the develops continue to improve the game instead of trying to please everyone with half measures that end up not pleasing anyone.

If Firaxis can't win players back Civ7 is gonna have a short lifespan. As someone who enjoys the game and wants to carry on enjoying it I want to see it have dev support over the long term. Winning players back without undermining the game for those of us who do enjoy it will be tough without making the game more customizable.

And one complaint which seems true is that 7 has the most restrictive gameplay loop of a civ game to date. So I'd argue that any improvements should be optional whatever route firaxis choose. I dispute that customizing isn't improving the game.