Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[aelf]

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.

Again, this is a willful misinterpretation of what I said. The negative narrative is a reaction for sure, but it is a reaction that, if it proves enduring, will likely cement the future direction of the series. And that direction won't be good either way.

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.

Time and again? When was the last time?

What do you think a safe iteration of civ would be like after Civ 6, given the prevailing conditions? By "understanding the audience," as you call it, what kind of game do you think they'd have created?

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.

Your using HoMM4 as an example proves my point. HoMM4 wasn't worse than previous iterations. It was just different. But consumer expectations were pretty set. They basically wanted iterations of HoMM3 forever.

 

[AD1730]

Time and again? When was the last time?

If you don't think there have been changes in previous Civ games, then I'm not sure what to say to you.

What do you think a safe iteration of civ

Another straw man.

 

[aelf]

If you don't think there have been changes in previous Civ games, then I'm not sure what to say to you.

My question pertains to how long it's been since the last civ game and changes to the formula. Do you not think in that time, circumstances have changed? The playerbase has changed?

Another straw man.

So you can't or don't want to answer my questions.

 

[protocol7]

You were here doing the exact same thing when the old thread was deleted. You’re free to post here of course but I can empathise with people who are tired of it time and again. The extent of your participation in this discussion and the old one is to show up every day or two to derail the topic and explain how we fear change and anyway shouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place because we will make people not like the game.

 

[AD1730]

My question pertains to how long it's been since the last civ game and changes to the formula. Do you not think in that time, circumstances have changed? The playerbase has changed?


So you can't or don't want to answer my questions.

As to your first question, that wasn't clear at all from your initial post and this now appears to be a post hoc rescue of what was an unsupported assertion. Civ games have had changes with each iteration, some more than others. Civ 7 is the most poorly received at release of them all and has changes that strike at the core of the franchise's identity. Therefore, I think it is more correct to attribute the reception to the attempt to change the franchise's core identity, rather than changes that have happened within its audience.

A Civilization 7 game that would have been more successful would not have included civ switching and ages. That's not "safe", anymore than it would be "safe" to have a Lord of the Rings movie set in Middle-earth rather than outer space. That's not safe, that's just being smart and being true to the franchise's identity.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

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

Bear in mind the last major update only stemmed the player loss for a day, and didn't actually increase the numbers, and that came alongside DLC.

Saying that, I had forgotten about the update, and I do expect the numbers will increase because they are so low right now.

 

[AD1730]

Bear in mind the last major update only stemmed the player loss for a day, and didn't actually increase the numbers, and that came alongside DLC.

Saying that, I had forgotten about the update, and I do expect the numbers will increase because they are so low right now.

The updates will have to be to bigger features. Right now it looks like they're doing a lot of nipping around the edges. I see this sort of thing all the time with Paradox releases.

 

[queenpea]

Again, this is a willful misinterpretation of what I said. The negative narrative is a reaction for sure, but it is a reaction that, if it proves enduring, will likely cement the future direction of the series. And that direction won't be good either way.

Sorry, what did I do? Maybe I misunderstood your post.

I think there is too much of a focus on the "negative reaction," when the focus should and needs to be on improving the game so that there is less of a negative reaction generally.

 

[Chiyo]

My question pertains to how long it's been since the last civ game and changes to the formula. Do you not think in that time, circumstances have changed? The playerbase has changed?

You are obviously new to the series as there have been changes in all iterations. For example 4 had religions, diplomatic relations based on playstyle or cottages that developed into towns. 5 had one unit per tile and 6 had cities spreading over the map with districts and wonders now taking up tiles. All these iterations were successful. The problem with civ7 is that they changed the basic game principles (for example build an empire to stand the test of time vs build an empire that will fail no matter what you doand thus you lose our civ) and, from what I read on this forums as I have never played into the modern age, they missed their goals of getting rid of the late game boredom and instead making modern age even more uninspiring. I fully agree that they did not consider the interests of their core audience and are now paying for it. With Civ5 there were issues as well in the beginning but those could be patched out. In 7 it is the basic game principles and thus I doubt they will be able to salvage this game.

 

[Dreadnought]

There seem to be three overall camps of negative reaction: "Fundamentally the game simply isn't good"; "The game has good fundamentals, but was released too early"; and "The game's cost model is too much of a barrier to entry". I wonder what apparatus Firaxis has to diagnose the overall issue here. Do companies routinely do post-release focus groups? Are they relying on steam reviews? Reading social media and forum posts? I think the question of "Where do they go from here?" depends significantly on whether they can pinpoint exactly what is at fault here.

 

[AD1730]

There seem to be three overall camps of negative reaction: "Fundamentally the game simply isn't good"; "The game has good fundamentals, but was released too early"; and "The game's cost model is too much of a barrier to entry". I wonder what apparatus Firaxis has to diagnose the overall issue here. Do companies routinely do post-release focus groups? Are they relying on steam reviews? Reading social media and forum posts? I think the question of "Where do they go from here?" depends significantly on whether they can pinpoint exactly what is at fault here.

If I was Firaxis, I would do the sort of focus group/interview you suggest. At random, I'd pick 100 players who have 1000+ hours in Civ 5/6 and do not have Civ 7 and 100 players who have Civ 7 and just ask them questions. I wouldn't pick streamers, influencers, or "community leaders" because I think those people are significantly different from the normal player.

The camps do interact with each other to some extent. For example, I'm more likely to pull the trigger on something that is unfinished or not within my wheelhouse if the price is lower. People are more critical of things that cost more.

 

[firadin]

they missed their goals of getting rid of the late game boredom and instead making modern age even more uninspiring

It seems to me that the statement "They missed their goals" is one that bears repeating. The developers had some stated goals with their major changes, including but not limited to:
1. Balanced maps to avoid restarts
2. Eras to keep the game fresh and get players to hit end-game
3. Lessen player choices so that players don't end up on auto-pilot

Yet the results have been pretty much the opposite:
1. Balanced maps have made the maps more boring and have led the players to rely on "Archipelago" setting to avoid rectangles. They've since reverted this change by introducing a classic map generation option.
2. Eras have actually created stop-points, allowing players to end a game after the Antiquity or sometimes Exploration Era. I don't think I've seen a single person say they're excited to play the Modern era, which has become incredibly fast and basically non-existent.
3. Fewer player choices has essentially made the game less interesting and too easy. Players have less agency and feel more railroaded, and also the devs are re-introducing some automation features (like auto-explore) because they didn't successfully remove the tedious non-choices the players have to engage in.

 

[aelf]

I think the discussions here are rather shallow and has in that regard tended to revolve around incorrect assumptions - e.g. "obviously" I, aelf, mean this or I am this. That's my issue with the nature of these sort of threads. It's just speculation or trying to obtain vindication for personal prejudices.

It's late, so I'm going to have to follow up with a much longer post tomorrow (I will try). I'm not just saying things. I will do my best to outline a macro perspective of what is happening. But, in short, rooting for a particular series is a dicey prospect. In the marketplace, products and franchises are subject to the forces of creative destruction. A popular franchise will eventually fail, despite how much we want it not to, and new, likely different, ones will take its place. And the seeds of its failure are planted by success. The more there is at stake (i.e. the bigger the customer base), the more pronounced the issues threatening its longevity will be.

 

[Krikkit1]

It seems to me that the statement "They missed their goals" is one that bears repeating. The developers had some stated goals with their major changes, including but not limited to:

2. Eras to keep the game fresh and get players to hit end-game


Yet the results have been pretty much the opposite:

2. Eras have actually created stop-points, allowing players to end a game after the Antiquity or sometimes Exploration Era. I don't think I've seen a single person say they're excited to play the Modern era, which has become incredibly fast and basically non-existent.

I think for #2 it still sort of works, players still "finish a game" by reaching a stop point with an actual victory type path, and can start in advanced form.
Now they do need to seriously work to make Modern itself more interesting,
and they Could use the Crises to prevent the snowball preassumed victory (while still having snowball factors inside each age)

But by having ages.... especially if they can get "choose your Victory Era" option... more players can finish games and experience any age even if it is only one era long.

 

[itix]

It seems to me that the statement "They missed their goals" is one that bears repeating. The developers had some stated goals with their major changes, including but not limited to:
2. Eras to keep the game fresh and get players to hit end-game

Yet the results have been pretty much the opposite:
2. Eras have actually created stop-points, allowing players to end a game after the Antiquity or sometimes Exploration Era. I don't think I've seen a single person say they're excited to play the Modern era, which has become incredibly fast and basically non-existent.

I think those stop-points could do good if implemented differently. At the end of the era, the game could display hiscore list and declare: "You earned xxx points and you were 1st/3rd/whatever/last. Do you want to retire or continue to the next era?".

If you are bored, you could retire as a winner/loser without going through the end game. Or you could continue to the next era and gain even more points.

 

[Leucarum]

1. Balanced maps to avoid restarts
2. Eras to keep the game fresh and get players to hit end-game
3. Lessen player choices so that players don't end up on auto-pilot

I don't remember 1 being a major goal. In any case it's already been walked back.

I think number 3 is a mixed bag. There are some areas where they accomplished a lot. As 2 examples: Combat is way more interesting than in previous civs which were frequently very much auto-pilot. Commanders, and units being in narrow tech bands make combined arms very interesting. Similarly removing builders and having city growth claim tiles creates a fun set of priorities around which tiles you need now versus which ones you eventually want.

But your point about autopilot and getting players to hit end game are I think intertwined. The modern age is just one long autopilot towards the same routes regardless of your civs' uniques. By that point very little matters so it devolves into "next turn" autopilot.

I do think that antiquity and exploration are both eras which feel fresh and new. Taken by itself I honestly feel that antiquity is the best that classic civ has ever been. It is undone however by the absolute pointlessness of the modern era

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't remember 1 being a major goal. In any case it's already been walked back.

I think number 3 is a mixed bag. There are some areas where they accomplished a lot. As 2 examples: Combat is way more interesting than in previous civs which were frequently very much auto-pilot. Commanders, and units being in narrow tech bands make combined arms very interesting. Similarly removing builders and having city growth claim tiles creates a fun set of priorities around which tiles you need now versus which ones you eventually want.

But your point about autopilot and getting players to hit end game are I think intertwined. The modern age is just one long autopilot towards the same routes regardless of your civs' uniques. By that point very little matters so it devolves into "next turn" autopilot.

I do think that antiquity and exploration are both eras which feel fresh and new. Taken by itself I honestly feel that antiquity is the best that classic civ has ever been. It is undone however by the absolute pointlessness of the modern era

I think the end game issue is 2 fold
1. Victories generally mean essentially filling up a bucket..so only one thing matters so less other things are important
2. Lack of meaningful interactions that would stop it from other players (AI and the problem of being runaway snowball by the time you hit Modern)

 

[Xur]

There seem to be three overall camps of negative reaction: "Fundamentally the game simply isn't good"; "The game has good fundamentals, but was released too early"; and "The game's cost model is too much of a barrier to entry". I wonder what apparatus Firaxis has to diagnose the overall issue here. Do companies routinely do post-release focus groups? Are they relying on steam reviews? Reading social media and forum posts? I think the question of "Where do they go from here?" depends significantly on whether they can pinpoint exactly what is at fault here.

They are going to soldier on and ignore any criticism in regards to ages, leaders and civs. The first time I heard Firaxis acknowledge problems with civ6 was when Ed Beach was explaining civ7 in marketing videos. They are very rigid in their design, so any course correction is probably first when they start with civ8. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually keep ages in civ8. They had 3-4 years after Humankind to change direction and didn't. It feels like they design games in a vacuum and don't listen to anyone outside the office, or play other games.

 

[Leucarum]

I think the end game issue is 2 fold
1. Victories generally mean essentially filling up a bucket..so only one thing matters so less other things are important
2. Lack of meaningful interactions that would stop it from other players (AI and the problem of being runaway snowball by the time you hit Modern)

To an extent that's also what victories were in Civ6, but now 1/3 of civs are only playable during the least interesting part of the game. And you get so railroaded you don't even get to use their unique stuff usually.

I do think the era system did some really good things. A lot of the combat improvements are I think down to units being partitioned into eras. The antiquity and exploration eras really do let their civs shine. But... All the eras have to be good for it to work and modern is as bad as it always was. We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that modern was much better in earlier civs, it's always been pointless. It's that now it's been emphasized and made critical...

Caveat though... I do love Civ7. I am criticizing it because I want it to succeed. I feel like It is so often that I have to caveat that I love Civ7 even though I am criticizing it that I need to put it in my signature...

 

[AD1730]

the developers felt the series "needed something fresh"

More often than not, "needed something fresh" really means that the developers wanted to make their own version of the game. I see this sort of thing all the time with movies, where writers/directors want to "make my take on X franchise", which typically ends up being a disaster laden with all of the writer/director's personal baggage and fantasies. Games and movies born out of this sort of attitude almost invariably fail because those who made them had an underlying resentment for the limitations of the franchise.