Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[user746383]

So are them doing something about the controversial mechanics going to be enough or not?

Not sure how or why you think I'd know that, but I hope so as I said.

 

[aelf]

You seemed pretty sure that every patch is not going to do much.

Yes it's subjective. This is why to some people you might say it's clinging to the past whilst others might say it's a bad change.

To some people anything different from what they're used to is bad, yes.

 

[user746383]

I literally said the ones so far haven't, but I hope this one does. Not really sure what you're getting at by saying that I said that every patch isn't going to do much.

 

[GeneralZift]

To some people anything different from what they're used to is bad, yes.

Likewise, to some people, any criticism is handwaved under "nostalgia" or "you're an old man who likes old things" or "you need to try new things" and stuff along those lines.

 

[aelf]

I literally said the ones so far haven't, but I hope this one does. Not really sure what you're getting at by saying that I said that every patch isn't going to do much.

Well, I know your assessment of a patch depends entirely on whether the current number of players on Steam looks good, so let's see if you'll stick to your "fortunately the devs seem to be focused on making the controversial mechanics optional" tack.

 

[user746383]

Does it depend entirely on that? Is that what the imaginary version of me in your head says?

 

[Askia Muhammad]

So one thing that's got lost amongst the patch announcement yesterday is that the peak was 7,500 and we're currently at 3,900 players on steam. New record absolute low and new record low peak.

I think this is the closest we're going to get to Firaxis admitting the numbers for Civ VII aren't looking good, and that there's not some mystical massive console audience propping up the numbers. They wouldn't need to signal a pivot this early if things we looking rosey

I think them saying in the check-in post that these features “haven't landed” is their apology and admission

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Ages/Eras have been a thing in Civ since CivIII, the issue with CivVII seems to be the jarring nature of the transition as opposed to previous versions. Thesee have to be smoothed out to make the gameplay more enjoyable, and the easiest thing I can see to do that is to leave units where they were from the previous turn the player played
Civ switching will probably be fine, in the end. But I think it will take a lot of Civs to be added for it to be worth players while/give enough options to make the switching not seem noticeable/weird/ahistoric. I'm not sure what the ultimate total number of Civs/Leaders planned is, but it might take many years of DLCs to get there, unfortunately

Full stop - making unit loss, movement, diplomatic reset, and cities being demoted to settlements granular menu options during age transition would 100% save this game. I’ll turn them all off and that would improve my personal enjoyment of the game tremendously.

I don’t mind civ swapping because I’ve been able to break the third wall and realize I’m just trading bonuses to fit my current plans. Civ 7 is certainly the least immersive of the series but I can somewhat enjoy it once I understand it’s just Ed Beach’s latest board game and not a simulation game or even much of a 4x.

 

[aelf]

Is that what the imaginary version of me in your head says?

Really? I'm going by the posts you make here, so you tell me

 

[user746383]

It’s a measure, not the only measure. Literally none of those posts say anything like my "assessment of a patch depends entirely on whether the current number of players on Steam looks good." You’re just serially misquoting me here and inferring implied subtext that isn’t there, in order to build an argument to score points against an imaginary point of view nobody (or at least not me) has. So while that may be fun for you, if you’re just making stuff up you don’t need my involvement. So I’ll just wish you good luck with your debate, give the imaginary version of me hell for me

 

[aelf]

Sure, let's see if you can resist gloating if or when the time comes.

 

[user746383]

Like I said I won’t be there, so that will be between you and the version of me in your head. But I’m sure they’ll be amenable! You can tell them I told them to. In the meantime, the premise of this conversation is too silly to keep responding so I’m out.

 

[Leucarum]

Full stop - making unit loss, movement, diplomatic reset, and cities being demoted to settlements granular menu options during age transition would 100% save this game. I’ll turn them all off and that would improve my personal enjoyment of the game tremendously.

I don’t mind civ swapping because I’ve been able to break the third wall and realize I’m just trading bonuses to fit my current plans. Civ 7 is certainly the least immersive of the series but I can somewhat enjoy it once I understand it’s just Ed Beach’s latest board game and not a simulation game or even much of a 4x.

I'm ok with the era reset, but my MP group really isn't so... I have my fingers crossed that Firaxis are reading this one, and that everything is done as a game setup option!

 

[GeneralZift]

Let's all take a breather lads

 

[MutilationWave]

Making these features optional certainly doesn’t constitute a “Civ 8” and frankly, the cost many of us paid for founders editions is basically the cost of two base games anyway.

All I know is that when they eventually do announce Civ 8, I won’t purchase if ages are included.

My hope is that cities being demoted to settlements and losing units will be toggleable options in the future. I may actually play again if I can quite literally continue building my civilization instead of arbitrarily losing half my army, then the remaining units being teleported to other places, and losing cities.

I’ve seen enough of the board game design, I’m begging Firaxis to select someone who isn’t named Ed Beach to lead development on the first expansion.

It seems like it would be simple to keep your army composition and unit locations. It's one of the more baffling and annoying parts of the game for me.

 

[Kev1916]

I would like more civs, but I think your numbers are overly optimistic.

And then some, I doubt there will be that many new "Civs" in any expansion, if we get one

The cost would be prohibitive

2K took the dlc pack and turned it into a bunch of individual DLCs! not very often you see that and why?

At just over $6 a pop for one Civ , cobbling together another 3 or 4 new Civs for each mini round would just not sell .

Also and it just my opinion , I think it's rather disgusting thou clever to sell off Civ's without there leaders and also sell off just one leader for the same price as a Civ.
The cash grab for this if it was a decent game would put fortnite to shame .

 

[Kwami]

And then some, I doubt there will be that many new "Civs" in any expansion, if we get one

The cost would be prohibitive

2K took the dlc pack and turned it into a bunch of individual DLCs! not very often you see that and why?

At just over $6 a pop for one Civ , cobbling together another 3 or 4 new Civs for each mini round would just not sell .

Also and it just my opinion , I think it's rather disgusting thou clever to sell off Civ's without there leaders and also sell off just one leader for the same price as a Civ.
The cash grab for this if it was a decent game would put fortnite to shame .

How many times do we have to go over this?

Civ V and Civ VI had exactly the same DLC model. For the first year after release, they sold individual civilizations and packs of two civilizations. They also sold some DLC with no civilizations (e.g. the Viking Scenario Pack). Considering inflation, the current DLC items are not more expensive than the ones for previous games.

And yet, we still got a full expansion pack with a bunch of civilizations in it. And then another one. Just like previous games.

 

[Kev1916]

How many times do we have to go over this?

Civ V and Civ VI had exactly the same DLC model. For the first year after release, they sold individual civilizations and packs of two civilizations. They also sold some DLC with no civilizations (e.g. the Viking Scenario Pack). Considering inflation, the current DLC items are not more expensive than the ones for previous games.

And yet, we still got a full expansion pack with a bunch of civilizations in it. And then another one. Just like previous games.

You can go over it as many times as your fingers can type, them still dont make it the facts or will change my opinion

No Civ DLC to my recollection was ever released without a leader to go with it or had one already in the game .

No DLC in any version of Civ was sold with just one leader , Caesar was link and free

The Viking scenario pack had a fair few other items included.

No idea re your idea of inflation but one Civ at $ 6 to play for 1/3 of a game, sounds a lot like more expensive to me.

Thou at least with the new toon's you can gain items and level up

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe there was a marketing plan to sell popular leader-packs down the line, but the way things are going this is unlikely to be viable.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Leaders are more expensive to produce than civilizations, despite civilizations having more effect on gameplay. They need much more detailed models and extremely detailed animations. Plus, even with all the Civ7 leaders grunting, they need several lines, translated and recorded by language speakers (where applicable).

So, I think the current rate of 2 civs per 1 leader in DLCs is that Firaxis was planning to do all along and will continue doing. Although full expansions could have slightly altered ratio.