Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[firadin]

I think it should be possible to have different number of civs in the different parts of the world, but in this case the size of those parts should reflect this. Players should always have some space to settle on the other part of the world.

This is part of the excessive rigidity that Civ7 instilled in the game that ruins it for a lot of people. Like I *want* to sometimes be the civilization that gets contacted, not the civilization that does the contacting. Sometimes I want to be fully isolated doing my own thing and not interact with other civs until they force me to. Sometimes I want to play that early exploration game and get across the ocean as fast as possible. That represents variety and options. Instead, Civ7 requires that you follow the same formula to get points in every game.

People are going to point out that you can just ignore the formula and not get points, but that's a bit like saying you can play basketball without trying to get the ball in the hoop. Yeah, technically you can, but at that point you're not really playing the game anymore you're doing your own thing.

 

[AD1730]

I think so too, but contemporary gaming/media culture clamours for repeating the same formulas while chafing against them. If the negative narrative prevails, I don't see a good future for the series.

This is a straw man, again setting up that the fans of this franchise won't accept any change, when we've seen time and time again that they will. Firaxis chose to paint far outside of the lines of what is acceptable for the Civilization franchise and they are suffering the consequences of that. Unfortunately, the areas where they went furthest from Civilization's identity are core mechanical features, thus they aren't easily ameliorated post-release, if they can be at all. Thus, the negative narrative will likely continue because they created a problem that they cannot fix. The solution to such problems is to avoid them in the first place by better understanding the audience.

 

[stealth_nsk]

This is part of the excessive rigidity that Civ7 instilled in the game that ruins it for a lot of people. Like I *want* to sometimes be the civilization that gets contacted, not the civilization that does the contacting. Sometimes I want to be fully isolated doing my own thing and not interact with other civs until they force me to. Sometimes I want to play that early exploration game and get across the ocean as fast as possible. That represents variety and options. Instead, Civ7 requires that you follow the same formula to get points in every game.

People are going to point out that you can just ignore the formula and not get points, but that's a bit like saying you can play basketball without trying to get the ball in the hoop. Yeah, technically you can, but at that point you're not really playing the game anymore you're doing your own thing.

I don't see it that way. You're not forced to do anything and in most cases points come from playing naturally. Firaxis even aiming at deeper ties between natural play and legacy paths as in the next patch treasure resources will provide additional bonuses on top of generating treasure fleets.

Yes, map generation options are more limited compared to previous installments, but in fact the only real option you're missing is to play Pangea for quick conquest. The rest of diversity is more or less there and is also being improved with patches.

P.S. Although I'd still very much welcome more variety of maps with non-rectangular zones.

 

[user746383]

I don’t think it’s true that the game is great except for people who complain about it creating a narrative that it’s bad, thus somehow making the game bad in some kind of circular way. It seems strange to me to think that people talking about not liking the game the cause rather than the symptom, but what do I know. It’s a bit of a “kids these days” argument imho. I was here for every change from civ 1 to 6 and liked them all except for 7.

That said, I think I would actually like civ switching, except for the off-screen death of your old civ to be replaced by whichever one you pick in the next era with which you can build over the rubble of the last one. I feel like that design decision is central to why I have a hard time enjoying playing any game past ancient and don’t have a strong sense of continuity as I did in other games. So I guess for me it’s more the way crises suck than anything else, although if you turn them off then your old civ just dies offscreen for no particular reason and that isn’t great either.

 

[Krikkit1]

I don’t think it’s true that the game is great except for people who complain about it creating a narrative that it’s bad, thus somehow making the game bad in some kind of circular way. It seems strange to me to think that people talking about not liking the game the cause rather than the symptom, but what do I know. It’s a bit of a “kids these days” argument imho.

That said, I think I would actually like civ switching, except for the off-screen death of your old civ to be replaced by whichever one you pick in the next era with which you can build over the rubble of the last one. I feel like that design decision is central to why I have a hard time enjoying playing any game past ancient and don’t have a strong sense of continuity as I did in other games.

That is significant because it is essentially a framing/naming/narrative situation that their system of "narrative events" would have been perfect for.... but was not put in.

 

[kaspergm]

Maybe the series being shelved will generate more satisfaction than any other outcome at this point. Would be a long and tedious journey to get to that point, though,

Wow that’s dark. I hope they can turn this around. It’s got a lot of potential.

I don't hope the series get's shelved, that will neither make good for the developers nor the players. But maybe it would not be so bad with a completely fresh set of developers for the next installment - someone who had not been involved with Civ5 and Civ6 and therefore did not feel quite the need to be "creative".

It's hard for me not to draw parallels to the Heroes of Might and Magic series, and to how after the hugely successful Heroes 2 and even more successful Heroes 3, the developers felt the series "needed something fresh", which ended up in the all but disastrous Heroes 4. And yes, that did mean the series went on ice for a number of years, but also resulted in the great reboot Heroes 5. So maybe there's hope for a reboot in Civilization 8 at some point, which will bring the game back closer to its roots. Of course, I would hope the Heroes analogy stops there, seeing how Ubisoft completely ruined the Heroes franchise with the subsequent Heroes 6 and 7.

 

[j51]

I don't hope the series get's shelved, that will neither make good for the developers nor the players. But maybe it would not be so bad with a completely fresh set of developers for the next installment - someone who had not been involved with Civ5 and Civ6 and therefore did not feel quite the need to be "creative".

It's hard for me not to draw parallels to the Heroes of Might and Magic series, and to how after the hugely successful Heroes 2 and even more successful Heroes 3, the developers felt the series "needed something fresh", which ended up in the all but disastrous Heroes 4. And yes, that did mean the series went on ice for a number of years, but also resulted in the great reboot Heroes 5. So maybe there's hope for a reboot in Civilization 8 at some point, which will bring the game back closer to its roots. Of course, I would hope the Heroes analogy stops there, seeing how Ubisoft completely ruined the Heroes franchise with the subsequent Heroes 6 and 7.

I get that point of view but I’d rather they make this game even better and bring in fresh blood for 8.

 

[0urBall]

This is part of the excessive rigidity that Civ7 instilled in the game that ruins it for a lot of people. Like I *want* to sometimes be the civilization that gets contacted, not the civilization that does the contacting. Sometimes I want to be fully isolated doing my own thing and not interact with other civs until they force me to. Sometimes I want to play that early exploration game and get across the ocean as fast as possible. That represents variety and options. Instead, Civ7 requires that you follow the same formula to get points in every game.

People are going to point out that you can just ignore the formula and not get points, but that's a bit like saying you can play basketball without trying to get the ball in the hoop. Yeah, technically you can, but at that point you're not really playing the game anymore you're doing your own thing.

Yeah, that was kinda what I was getting at, it seems bad enough that the maps are already fairly rigid in the types that are generated (no pangea/archipelagos/no iso or semi isoloated starts etc.) but I think it's even more rigid if the player always starts on the more "cramped" landmass. I think it's one of the things that's affecting replayability that could easily be fixed.
To me, the only thing that the devs seem to have thought would be a big factor affecting replayability is the idea of playing with all leaders and civ combinations. But then I just checked, and they're not even achievements on Steam, so there's no real reason for players to slog through playing each leader with every civ. So, I'm not sure where the "hook" is to bring players back to play the game again and again, apart from introducing more leaders/civs with DLCs. But that doesn't last very long either

 

[user746383]

It definitely feels way more like playing a scenario than playing a game of civ. Which can be fun, but playing a single scenario over and over again was never my thing.

 

[AD1730]

Yeah, that was kinda what I was getting at, it seems bad enough that the maps are already fairly rigid in the types that are generated (no pangea/archipelagos/no iso or semi isoloated starts etc.) but I think it's even more rigid if the player always starts on the more "cramped" landmass. I think it's one of the things that's affecting replayability that could easily be fixed.
To me, the only thing that the devs seem to have thought would be a big factor affecting replayability is the idea of playing with all leaders and civ combinations. But then I just checked, and they're not even achievements on Steam, so there's no real reason for players to slog through playing each leader with every civ. So, I'm not sure where the "hook" is to bring players back to play the game again and again, apart from introducing more leaders/civs with DLCs. But that doesn't last very long either

If I was charged with attempting to save this game, getting rid of the Distant Lands mechanic would be a day 1 task. It seems to create a lot of constraints in return for minimal benefit.

 

[j51]

I don’t think it’s true that the game is great except for people who complain about it creating a narrative that it’s bad, thus somehow making the game bad in some kind of circular way. It seems strange to me to think that people talking about not liking the game the cause rather than the symptom, but what do I know. It’s a bit of a “kids these days” argument imho. I was here for every change from civ 1 to 6 and liked them all except for 7.

That said, I think I would actually like civ switching, except for the off-screen death of your old civ to be replaced by whichever one you pick in the next era with which you can build over the rubble of the last one. I feel like that design decision is central to why I have a hard time enjoying playing any game past ancient and don’t have a strong sense of continuity as I did in other games. So I guess for me it’s more the way crises suck than anything else, although if you turn them off then your old civ just dies offscreen for no particular reason and that isn’t great either.

I’ve been with the series since 1 and I still like this more than 6, even in its incomplete state. (Honestly I never found the charm of 6 so anything feels better to me. Like why was it so popular? But also why didn’t I like it as much? 6 felt repetitive and boring to me, but I can’t articulate more than that easily.)

7 feels right to me and I love civ switching (relieves boredom and with enough civs it will feel like history), but yeah, the way they did it (the jarring age changes) is poor. It should be one complete game not three and a civ should be able to change at any point given certain criteria are met. Maybe civs should only switch once (normally) and when and how you choose to switch should have strategic significance? Maybe switching should be risky? If you don’t switch you won’t loose cities, units, etc. but you won’t gain new bonuses either.

 

[user746383]

Yeah, it would be awesome if my civ somehow evolved into more modern ones instead of being predestined to fail except I get to keep playing by picking a new one.

 

[Xur]

I think so too, but contemporary gaming/media culture clamours for repeating the same formulas while chafing against them. If the negative narrative prevails, I don't see a good future for the series.

I don’t know why you keep saying this. Repeating it won’t make it any more true. Most -if not all- YouTubers had high praise for Civ 7 before its release. Maybe people just don’t like the game? It's not some conspiracy. I would love a good civ game.

 

[user746383]

I was so excited for a new version with all the advertised changes that I preordered the most expensive version. I don’t hate change - they just failed in my opinion to pull off their vision. It’s a bit insulting to keep showing up here and saying we shouldn’t be allowed to think or say this for fear of making people think the game is bad.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I don’t think player count and reviews are bad because of narrative, but because the game did not meet expectations. And it’s not a crime to say the game didn’t meet expectations.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I don't think it's just the "negative narrative", which is to blame for a rocky release.

I think we are guaranteed at least one expansion pack. I also think that a free content update paired with a sale sometime this summer (?) could help the game find its footing. On player count, we may soon be approaching somewhat of a floor around 9,000 - 11,000 players.

It does feel like we're approaching a floor. Next week we might get a sub 10,000 player peak, but I can't see it dropping much lower than that.

 

[0urBall]

Most -if not all- YouTubers had high praise for Civ 7 before its release.

I'm not sure if this is usual behaviour for them, but any of the YouTubers I've looked for recently (Potato/Spiffing/Ursa) seem to have moved away from streaming CivVII to other games, which may also tell part of the story of the games success or otherwise

 

[chazzycat]

I only stopped playing temporarily because they are tinkering with the growth formula next week

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don’t know why you keep saying this. Repeating it won’t make it any more true. Most -if not all- YouTubers had high praise for Civ 7 before its release. Maybe people just don’t like the game? It's not some conspiracy. I would love a good civ game.

I think it's even more simple - different people like different games and different aspects of the game. Many people here mention how half of steam reviews are negative, but the other half is positive.

Civ7 is not a bad game (although it has quite big room for improvements of some quite basic things), it's just quite different from Civ6 and thus some people who liked Civ6 dislike Civ7, but for some people it's the other way around.

The same thing happened with Civ4 to Civ5 transition and it had even more rough start. The franchise survived it and went really well afterwards.

 

[itix]

It does feel like we're approaching a floor. Next week we might get a sub 10,000 player peak, but I can't see it dropping much lower than that.

Isn't there a major update next week? It will improve, not decline, but the week after that...

 

[GeneralZift]

I read on Reddit that the numbers have now dropped below Civ Beyond Earth

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/s/YjZwwrlehU

EDIT: Nevermind, reading comprehension fail. The fall off is greater than when compared to BE at the same time after release relatively.