Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gorbles]

From 5 cents to 15 cents... From one monkey to three unpaid interns.
It's like triple the better-ness
Civ6 was a very low bar to clear

And? Is that not still evidence of a focus on AI? Your somewhat insulting remarks aside.

There’s what Firaxis says, and then there’s the reality of the product they delivered. I choose to judge the product itself - not the marketing. Will your opinion change now?

Nice condescending reply by the way. Lovely way to discuss a subject.

Genuine questions. Hence, "genuinely".

Anyhow, you're the one who said "zero focus on AI". If you make a claim, and somebody says "hey there's evidence that contradicts this", focusing on their tone instead of well, being wrong, is somewhat missing the point. But it does answer the question.

Do players not enjoy balanced games vs. the AI? This idea that single player games are somehow devoid of balance is also confusing, but that's a tangent I don't really wish to explore given the lack of acknowledgement that there was, in fact, a focus on AI this time around.

 

[AD1730]

Normal strategy is to focus on both. Old audience doesn't grow, it could only shrink, so to grow you have to somehow aim where you haven't aimed before. On the other hand, totally forgetting old audience is surely too risky. And Firaxis clearly aims toward both audiences, although it's hard to say whether proportion is right.

There were actually pretty interesting debates on this topic in strategic management circles in the recent years.

How has the focus on growing the audience outside of their typical demographic worked for Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, etc.? Not well. Number go up business strategy kills creativity and kills franchises.

The focus should start with why people who like your product like your product (and, based on Civ 7, I'm not sure that Firaxis even understands what that is), rather than figuring out ways to change the product in order to gain some hypothetical audience that you may not even get. Instead, if possible, make what is good about your product even better.

 

[MutilationWave]

I'd be willing to wager that the desire for yield porn created the exploration science legacy path, which is unfortunately just a test of whether you understand how adjacencies and specialists work. If yes you automatically score it more or less...

I really struggled with the 40 yield path at first. I didn't realize that those policies can be used for it, because if you slot the policy it doesn't change until next turn. Of course I'm way better at adjacency planning now.

It was still the second hardest path for me other than antiquity culture, which I've still never managed to get more than one point in. One of these days I'll play a peaceful antiquity. It's tough on deity because the AIs snap up all the wonders so fast, you need to know which ones they prioritize. @Boris Gudenuf said he got Mausoleum on deity, but for me it's been impossible. Definitely can't get it if Catherine is in game.

Sorry for thread derail, I'm bad about that.

 

[Leucarum]

I really struggled with the 40 yield path at first. I didn't realize that those policies can be used for it, because if you slot the policy it doesn't change until next turn. Of course I'm way better at adjacency planning now.

It was still the second hardest path for me other than antiquity culture, which I've still never managed to get more than one point in. One of these days I'll play a peaceful antiquity. It's tough on deity because the AIs snap up all the wonders so fast, you need to know which ones they prioritize. @Boris Gudenuf said he got Mausoleum on deity, but for me it's been impossible. Definitely can't get it if Catherine is in game.

Sorry for thread derail, I'm bad about that.

To slightly continue the derail, I'm also curious how the antiquity legacy path will scale once more civs are added and we can play huge maps. With the number of wonders constant, this path just gets harder and harder if you add player count...

 

[Siptah]

To slightly continue the derail, I'm also curious how the antiquity legacy path will scale once more civs are added and we can play huge maps. With the number of wonders constant, this path just gets harder and harder if you add player count...

The number of wonders is only constant for people that don‘t buy the DLC. Hence, you spend € to increase your chances on that path.

 

[Leucarum]

The number of wonders is only constant for people that don‘t buy the DLC. Hence, you spend € to increase your chances on that path.

I would like this post, but it feels dirty to do so...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The number of wonders is only constant for people that don‘t buy the DLC. Hence, you spend € to increase your chances on that path.

Same problem potentially with the Modern Relics Chase. Both that And the Wonder Race in Antiquity get much harder as the number of opponents increases. That's why I think there need to be more Alternative Paths to the Legacies in all Ages, but especially those two, which are both seriously affected by map size and numbers of other Civs racing for them.

 

[Glassmage]

This is really sad. They fumbled with Civ7, especially after the failure that is Marvel Midnight Suns.

 

[MutilationWave]

This is really sad. They fumbled with Civ7, especially after the failure that is Marvel Midnight Suns.

Maybe a fumble, but I think it was recovered. I wouldn't count the game out yet, especially with the history of civ games getting better and better.

This is the first one I've bought in at the beginning for and it's fascinating. With patches and mods the game went from 4/10 to 8/10 for me. Let's call it 7/10 without mods.

 

[Timothy001]

Except for my weekly Civ VI group play, I have been playing only CivVII. As each patch gets released, the game gets better. The last patch retired 6 mods I was using. Hoping the next patch is as good. I believe the game is heading in the right direction. Last year at this time, I was alternating between CivVi, Humankind, and Millenia. Now both Humankind and Millenia seem to be dead. No news on either for a long time.
I would like to see more leaders, and Civs released. Hopefully add more branches to the tree of civs, more diverging paths. I am hopeful, that once they have fixed most of the big bugs, they can do a nice pass on leaders and civs balance. Right now, some civs seem less of an option over another.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@Boris Gudenuf said he got Mausoleum on deity, but for me it's been impossible. Definitely can't get it if Catherine is in game.

To be absolutely specific, I got the Mausoleum only by sacrificing everything else to Beeline it:
My first three Civics in that game were Discipline, Tactics, and Organized Military - straight to the Mausoleum of Theodoric.

Later I played the same game set-up and tried other Civics sequences and none worked: deviate ever so slightly from the straight path - like to pick up Mysticism, which is only an extra 125 Culture points - and an AI Civ will beat you to it.

The problem, then, is that doing that makes you late to get to, say, Code of Laws and Merchant trade routes and the accumulation of resources for the Legacy Path. Consequently, while that game playing Bulgaria later was a lot of pillagerey fun, I haven't tried it again: IMHO too many things have to be sacrificed in Civics and Civ choices to get the Perfect Pillage Path throughout the game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

How has the focus on growing the audience outside of their typical demographic worked for Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, etc.? Not well. Number go up business strategy kills creativity and kills franchises.

It depends on which part of effort you look at. For example, Clone Wars and Rebels cartoons were a big success. Similarly, prequel trilogy, which had mixed reaction originally, became classic pretty soon. On the other hand, the biggest failure of Star Wars, the sequel trilogy, failed despite aiming precisely at old fans (I could argue that aiming at old fans was even one of the reasons of the failure).

So, I don't think those things are connected.

The focus should start with why people who like your product like your product (and, based on Civ 7, I'm not sure that Firaxis even understands what that is), rather than figuring out ways to change the product in order to gain some hypothetical audience that you may not even get. Instead, if possible, make what is good about your product even better.

It depends on a lot of variables, strategy is much more detailed than that. Extremely conservative strategies focused on existing customers only are short roads to death.

I don't think Firaxis made a mistake in strategy. They probably failed at execution, but not very much providing their circumstances.

 

[protocol7]

Generally I agree with you nsk, but at the same time I don’t really see why it’s a given that if you focus on what existing fans like then you’re on a short path to death (just like the inverse isn’t a given). BG3 for example didn’t find a new audience by abandoning the fans, but by giving them even more of what they want in an even more complete, polished package with plenty of innovation sprinkled in that didn’t alienate existing fans. And despite being a AAA game released on console that existing fans loved, they have a 24 hour peak on PC of over 100,000 players compared to 10,000 for civ7 even almost two years after release, and even though the Oblivion Remaster just came out.

But strategy sort of doesn’t matter if you fail to execute, and Larian excelled in execution for BG3, so hopefully Firaxis can turn that around and then we will be able to see if there really was something so unsalvageable about what existing fans liked about civ that it warranted pivoting to a new audience or not.

 

[KayAU]

I was looking at the concurrent player numbers for the last three games again now, and a couple of things occured to me.

One is that the player numbers for Civ 6 have declined significantly after Civ 7's release, much more so than for Civ 5. This is not surprising of course, since 6 is now no longer the most recent Civ game, while 5 hasn't been the most recent in a long time. However, what also occured to me, is that the overall player numbers for all three games combined have gone down significantly. The players who left 6 for 7, did not return to 6 as 7's numbers declined. I was curious if the same thing happened after Civ 6's release, and this is what I found:

Civ 5 before the release of Civ 6: about 70k concurrent players
Civ 5 + Civ 6 when Civ 6 was in its dip: about 70k to 80k concurrent players
Civ 5 + Civ 6 as Civ 6 grew in popularity: about 100k to 120k concurrent players
Civ 5 + Civ 6 + Civ 7 now: about 60k concurrent players

My worry here is that the popularity of the franchise overall may be declining. Again, this may not be surprising with how bad the launch of Civ 7 has been, but it does highlight how important it is that FXS/TT turn this around, and somehow make Civ 7 a success for the future of the series. At this point in Civ 6's life, more players were playing Civ 5, yes, but it was not a huge difference (about 60% to 40%), and overall player numbers had increased slightly. Now, only about 20-25% of players are playing the most recent game, and overall player numbers are down 30-40%.

I know that Firaxis are doing their best to improve situation. However, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I wonder what Take Two are doing, as they, in my opinion, deserve at least equal blame. They seem to have done everything they can to cross off every box on the "bad publisher" bingo card. Rushed release? Yes. Third-party DRM? Yes. Premium price point? Yes. Pay not to wait? Yes. Content chopped out to be sold as day 1 DLC? Yes. And so on. Perhaps Firaxis slipped up on the game itself, perhaps they made some controversial changes to the design, but I still find this far more excusable than what Take Two has done. Innovation isn't easy, and sometimes you may miss the mark, but unless you try, you will stagnate. Take Two, however, has ensured that any changes and rough edges will be seen in the worst light possible. There are things they can do to put Civ 7 in a more positive light, but unless I have missed something, it seems only Firaxis are working to improve things.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Generally I agree with you nsk, but at the same time I don’t really see why it’s a given that if you focus on what existing fans like then you’re on a short path to death (just like the inverse isn’t a given). BG3 for example didn’t find a new audience by abandoning the fans, but by giving them even more of what they want in an even more complete, polished package with plenty of innovation sprinkled in that didn’t alienate existing fans. And despite being a AAA game released on console that existing fans loved, they have a 24 hour peak on PC of over 100,000 players compared to 10,000 for civ7 even almost two years after release, and even though the Oblivion Remaster just came out.

But strategy sort of doesn’t matter if you fail to execute, and Larian excelled in execution for BG3, so hopefully Firaxis can turn that around and then we will be able to see if there really was something so unsalvageable about what existing fans liked about civ that it warranted pivoting to a new audience or not.

BG3 is a unique case, because it combined several categories of fans - those who like original BG games, those who like Larian gameplay and those who like D&D 5. It actually was a brave experiment, because possibilities ranged from acceptance by all of them to dislike by all of them. The result was close to first situation and thus success, but it's not a repeatable strategy in most cases, including civ games.

BTW, I like D&D, I'm ok with old BG games, but I strongly dislike Larian games, so I didn't bought BG3 yet. Probably on one of the next sales.

 

[protocol7]

Not just that, but the clock is ticking. People who like playing old strategy games are already playing old strategy games. Waiting for civ7 to get old before it’s good doesn’t seem like a winning plan.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I was looking at the concurrent player numbers for the last three games again now, and a couple of things occured to me.

View attachment 730461

One is that the player numbers for Civ 6 has declined significantly after Civ 7's release, much more so than for Civ 5. This is not surprising of course, since 6 is now no longer the most recent Civ game, while 5 hasn't been the most recent in a long time. However, what also occured to me, is that the overall player numbers for all three games combined have gone down significantly. The players who left 6 for 7, did not return to 6 as 7's numbers declined. I was curious if the same thing happened after Civ 6's release, and this is what I found:

Civ 5 before the release of Civ 6: about 70k concurrent players
Civ 5 + Civ 6 when Civ 6 was in its dip: about 70k to 80k concurrent players
Civ 5 + Civ 6 as Civ 6 grew in popularity: about 100k to 120k concurrent players
Civ 5 + Civ 6 + Civ 7 now: about 60k concurrent players

My worry here is that the popularity of the franchise overall may be declining. Again, this may not be surprising with how bad the launch of Civ 7 has been, but it does highlight how important it is that FXS/TT turn this around, and somehow make Civ 7 a success for the future of the series. At this point in Civ 6's life, more players were playing Civ 5, yes, but it was not a huge difference (about 60% to 40%), and overall player numbers had increased slightly. Now, only about 20-25% of players are playing the most recent game, and overall player numbers are down 30-40%.

I know that Firaxis are doing their best to improve situation. However, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I wonder what Take Two are doing, as they, in my opinion, deserve at least equal blame. They seem to have done everything they can to cross off every box on the "bad publisher" bingo card. Rushed release? Yes. Third-party DRM? Yes. Premium price point? Yes. Pay not to wait? Yes. Content chopped out to be sold as day 1 DLC? Yes. And so on. Perhaps Firaxis slipped up on the game itself, perhaps they made some controversial changes to the design, but I still find this far more excusable than what Take Two has done. Innovation isn't easy, and sometimes you may miss the mark, but unless you try, you will stagnate. Take Two, however, has ensured that any changes and rough edges will be seen in the worst light possible. There are things they can do to put Civ 7 in a more positive light, but unless I have missed something, it seems only Firaxis are working to improve things.

That's great observation! At least two factors which were discussed before could be at play here:
1. Competition, as there are much more turn-based strategies now than while Civ5 and Civ6 were at their peaks.
2. We still don't have any reliable info on the number of Civ7 console players. Those who left Civ6 for Civ7 and didn't return could actually play it on consoles.

 

[protocol7]

BG3 is a unique case, because it combined several categories of fans - those who like original BG games, those who like Larian gameplay and those who like D&D 5. It actually was a brave experiment, because possibilities ranged from acceptance by all of them to dislike by all of them. The result was close to first situation and thus success, but it's not a repeatable strategy in most cases, including civ games.

BTW, I like D&D, I'm ok with old BG games, but I strongly dislike Larian games, so I didn't bought BG3 yet. Probably on one of the next sales.

There are many other examples where companies focused on existing fans if you don’t personally like BG3. Monster Hunter World, Metroid Dread, Doom and Doom Eternal, RE2 remake, many more. And anyway you personally not liking it doesn’t change that it was a commercial success so I don’t see how it proves that focusing on existing fans is a sure path to a quick death.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There are many other examples where companies focused on existing fans if you don’t personally like BG3. Monster Hunter World, Metroid Dread, Doom and Doom Eternal, RE2 remake, many more. And anyway you personally not liking it doesn’t change that it was a commercial success so I don’t see how it proves that focusing on existing fans is a path to a quick death.

Yes, sure. I'm just saying that old fans are shrinking audience, as there are no new old fans, while some people are living the game. And since game development becomes more and more expensive, developers have to somehow extend the audience. The difference is how radical it is. Jumping for significantly new market the way Civ7 does it is clearly not a common thing, but even games who don't do it, still somehow seek new audiences.

P.S. Me disliking the game was not part of the argument, just a note.

 

[protocol7]

You seem to be assuming new fans can’t possibly like something for the same reasons old fans do, which I don’t think is actually a safe assumption.