Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Askia Muhammad]

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.

In the context of Civ 7, he’s somewhat infamous for releasing two videos within a minute or two of each other. One claiming it’s the greatest Civ game ever and one claiming it’s terrible.

While I wish him the best with his mental health, the trying to play all sides angle is definitely going to result in a much more mixed comment section. It seems to me his general mental health is cratering and he is used to retreating to his comment section as a refuge but he can no longer do that.

 

[firadin]

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.

Honestly? That sounds great. What I've learned from my distaste of Civ7 is that the market is too centralized around Civ and an unfun (for me) Civ7 means I don't have a new 4X game to play for the next decade. I welcome new entrants to the category, maybe we can get some creative spins like fantasy Civ or more sci-fi options (GalCiv 2 was one of my favorites before). A rogue-like 4X game might be interesting, like Against The Storm did for city builders.

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

I think Having a game Mode where you only unlock civs through civs you play (ie Rome can only go to Spain/Normans, no Abbassids/Chola even if they get the Camels/Coastal Cities) would definitely be a good option.

The Standard Game should Definitely give you the ability to choose if you want to keep your name or switch to the new one... Roman Conquistadors or Spanish Conquistadors... Roman Motte and Bailley or Norman Motte and Bailey... Giving the player that choice doesn't affect gameplay but it allows the players to have "Their Roman empire" enter the new age the way they want it to enter.... (or if you allow other methods of unlocks maybe Roman Mosques and Madrassas)

 

[Lazy sweeper]

No no no they need to make Civ V remastered

No, they should make Civ IV with complete spherical map instead, and bring back gallic Warriors, Immortals and Crusaders.

They changed the rules every time a new Civ has been made, I wonder what makes Aplha-Zero like Civilization so attractive to them...
Bring back squares and SOD, workers, roads, small cities... but keep the new shiny graphics.
That's all I ask.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I think Having a game Mode where you only unlock civs through civs you play (ie Rome can only go to Spain/Normans, no Abbassids/Chola even if they get the Camels/Coastal Cities) would definitely be a good option.

The Standard Game should Definitely give you the ability to choose if you want to keep your name or switch to the new one... Roman Conquistadors or Spanish Conquistadors... Roman Motte and Bailley or Norman Motte and Bailey... Giving the player that choice doesn't affect gameplay but it allows the players to have "Their Roman empire" enter the new age the way they want it to enter.... (or if you allow other methods of unlocks maybe Roman Mosques and Madrassas)

Having a set of rules would be good... for every Civilization to build upon...

How can I play a game that changes rules every time a patch comes out?
Victory conditions is one of those gameplay mode that made the core of the fun in the older Civ titles. Always there.
We could identify with those. Like Chess "Blitz" game or "Classical". Same thing.

I can't even talk about how the "classical" mode should work any longer... it seems like there is
no understanding of the foundations basis that needs to be re-established for all of this to work.

 

[Kwami]

If Firaxis can't win players back Civ7 is gonna have a short lifespan.

That remains to be seen. Comparisons with a game that's been out for nine years don't mean much. Let's see how they do with the first expansion and with the first few big sales.

 

[Leucarum]

That remains to be seen. Comparisons with a game that's been out for nine years don't mean much. Let's see how they do with the first expansion and with the first few big sales.

Sure. I very much doubt sales, or trying to stay the course are gonna cut it personally but who knows.

I want 7 to succeed, I am enjoying it, but I feel this is very much like the Leopard and for everything to stay the same, everything must change...

 

[Dreadnought]

Given the toxic state of social media, I couldn't imagine working as a content creator, even without any sort of mental health troubles. Cannot be an easy job, especially when the big release years in the making has turned out to be a dud.

 

[itix]

That remains to be seen. Comparisons with a game that's been out for nine years don't mean much. Let's see how they do with the first expansion and with the first few big sales.

Suppose there is any expansion at all. It is not guaranteed.

While we are at it, I am unsure if adding classic mode will help. It would be just Civ 7 emulating Civ 6. That is not good enough.

 

[protocol7]

Civ7 is marginally doing better than Beyond Earth at this point, and it got an expansion pack, so I'd expect Civ7 to as well.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Piece of random data for today. Looking at Steam achievements, achievements for winning with personas from Founder's content pack are around 3 times less common than achievements for winning with default leaders. Meaning around 1/3 of players who more or less invested their time in the game, preordered the game in the most expensive version.

 

[Kev1916]

Civ7 is marginally doing better than Beyond Earth at this point, and it got an expansion pack, so I'd expect Civ7 to as well.

I think so as well, thou recent figures suggest this "version" is doing worse than Beyond Earth .

They have more than likely started the next one and like BE they will try to squeeze as much coin out of this one and then bin it.

No amount of new cosmetics and variants to the meta will save this game

 

[Gorbles]

They have more than likely started the next one and like BE they will try to squeeze as much coin out of this one and then bin it.

And if you're wrong? Will you turn around and say that, when the time comes?

Or is it just rampant negative speculation forever, completely unchecked?

 

[protocol7]

To be fair, it is the speculation thread.

 

[Kev1916]

And if you're wrong? Will you turn around and say that, when the time comes?

Or is it just rampant negative speculation forever, completely unchecked?

If am wrong , then, well I'll be wrong , and Civ VIII is delayed a bit longer
65% negative reviews suggest's the odds currently are in my favour.

You enjoy your night

 

[GeneralZift]

Well I will try to sidestep this air of hostility I've been feeling on the forums lately when I make this opinion:

I think Civ7 will probably see a dev cycle similar to Age4, but slightly truncated. Reasons being, the release was a little bit floppy, they revived it with a couple expansions, and they never fully made something everyone could enjoy, but it had its own dedicated fanbase.
So I imagine we will see that for the next couple of years rather than Civ8, and I don't imagine they will recapture the veterans any time soon

 

[UWHabs]

Well I will try to sidestep this air of hostility I've been feeling on the forums lately when I make this opinion:

I think Civ7 will probably see a dev cycle similar to Age4, but slightly truncated. Reasons being, the release was a little bit floppy, they revived it with a couple expansions, and they never fully made something everyone could enjoy, but it had its own dedicated fanbase.
So I imagine we will see that for the next couple of years rather than Civ8, and I don't imagine they will recapture the veterans any time soon

They're not going to punt the changes over a few months of negative reaction.
We have the summer DLC coming to finish off those who ordered the founders edition. I expect we'll have a scatter of similar DLC options over the next year, a few more civs, a few more leaders, etc...
We'll have the first big expansion pack in a year and a half or so (Fall 2027), which will be the first big shakeup as they attempt to revive things. The second expansion will change more, and will come a year or two after that.

If things are still in rough shape overall, and they haven't won people back, then yeah, probably they would shift, and maybe we'll end up with like a "civ 7.5" taking the pieces people liked best in 7. Assuming they don't string out the current version for 10 years like they did civ 6.

 

[Gorbles]

To be fair, it is the speculation thread.

That's very true. I guess I'm frustrated from the constant assumption that the game itself can't be improved, made by players who would prefer a new iteration over the current game being improved.

If am wrong , then, well I'll be wrong , and Civ VIII is delayed a bit longer
65% negative reviews suggest's the odds currently are in my favour.

What if they simply try to make Civ VII the best it can be, and it has zero bearing on the dev cycle of any hypothetical Civ VIII?

Well I will try to sidestep this air of hostility I've been feeling on the forums lately when I make this opinion:

I think Civ7 will probably see a dev cycle similar to Age4, but slightly truncated. Reasons being, the release was a little bit floppy, they revived it with a couple expansions, and they never fully made something everyone could enjoy, but it had its own dedicated fanbase.
So I imagine we will see that for the next couple of years rather than Civ8, and I don't imagine they will recapture the veterans any time soon

Age of Empires is an interesting use case to me (because I play it! ). Especially as AoE IV is still being supported (quarterly "seasonal updates", monthly-ish smaller patches, two planned DLCs this year, one of which has already been released).

Would you say that AoE III was also not something that everyone could enjoy?

And that if AoE III came to exist in the first place, that AoE II wasn't something that everyone should enjoy?

How important is making something that everyone can enjoy? Is it important for Civilisation? AoE? Or both?

 

[aelf]

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?

I was responding to this bit:

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.

My thinking is there aren't many people left to win over to make up for the cumulative drop offs.

Not sure if the platform matters. I think there's a relatively small pool of people who are willing and able to play 4x games, which is mostly only replenished by new gamers joining the pool.

equivalent of Baldur's Gate 3

A totally different and much bigger market, though.

 

[GeneralZift]

Age of Empires is an interesting use case to me (because I play it! ). Especially as AoE IV is still being supported (quarterly "seasonal updates", monthly-ish smaller patches, two planned DLCs this year, one of which has already been released).

Would you say that AoE III was also not something that everyone could enjoy?

And that if AoE III came to exist in the first place, that AoE II wasn't something that everyone should enjoy?

How important is making something that everyone can enjoy? Is it important for Civilisation? AoE? Or both?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say to be honest. The point I was making is that it will probably go the way of Age4, in that it gets some minor updates and some DLCs with a smaller playerbase -- but it won't be quite as large or impactful as the earlier games.

The veterans didn't exactly like a lot of things with Age4 and the same is true with Civ7.
So again, instead of being a total failure as some are suggesting, I'm imagining Civ7 will go down this route.

I'm suggesting, it won't be the 'biggest Civ game so far' as were all the previous Civ titles during their respective times.