Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[queenpea]

Player numbers seem to have resumed the downward motion we were seeing pre-1.2, and player reviews have ticked negative once again. The good news is that someone will probably tell me very soon that this data is insignificant.

 

[99-percent-sure]

"Cut losses & buckle up for Civ 8" i think would be a major reputation and player trust hit for Firaxis. If they just abandon the game, i at least would have zero interest for a CIV8.

Just out of curiosity, is anyone in the camp of, "I don't like Civ 7 and I don't plan on playing it, but I also think Firaxis should keep supporting and improving it, and release expansions for it just like they did with the last few Civ games"? Mostly I see people who dislike the game rationalizing why it should be abandoned as quickly as possible in order to bring about Civ 8, a.k.a. Civ 3/4/5 with better graphics and maybe army commanders/navigable rivers, which happens to suit their personal preferences and interests. Meanwhile, people who do like Civ 7 enough to play it are advocating for the same continued support that Firaxis has given previous Civ versions, which likewise suits their interests (new playable content to look forward to in a short timeframe). It's pretty easy to discern the typical human cognitive process of reaching one's desired conclusion first (based on mainly emotion), then rationalizing why that desired conclusion is the correct one and calling it logic.

Personally, I'm fine either way as long as Firaxis doesn't disable my copy of Civ 7 so I can't play it anymore. For me, it's easily good enough to keep having fun with, even if it's not quite great. But I do think a failure of support for Civ 7 would result in fewer people taking a chance on Civ 8 when it is first released, even if the reviews are good, since most people think game reviewers have become compromised by publisher influence. The game would have to be discounted significantly in order to get enough buy-in (which might also work with the pricey Civ 7, as many have said, and may happen once Firaxis feels like they've improved Civ 7 enough to welcome in a lot of new customers). I never bought any Civ game before all of the expansions were released until this one, and it would be very easy to revert to that mindset if Firaxis bails early.

 

[King of Prussia]

Abandoning 7 for 8 would be a disaster, both PR and financially, long and short term.

Even if they started now, Civ 8 wouldnt be out till 2030. It would costs 10s if not 100+ millions of dollars. Civ 7 not only has to pay for itself, but make enough to support future development. lets not forget the profits that others want to see

Civ 7 has to be somewhat of a success to secure future investments.


Now, they could do a spin off, with a smaller team that uses a lot of the Civ 7 engine. This would be a low cost, decent reward that could recoup some of their money they invested in 7.

 

[Siptah]

Player numbers seem to have resumed the downward motion we were seeing pre-1.2, and player reviews have ticked negative once again. The good news is that someone will probably tell me very soon that this data is insignificant.

I won‘t say this is insignificant, but it is not unexpected. The patches can only stop the decline for some time, until all/most of the people in the player pool that come back every now and then played 1-3 games with the patch and turn to another game again.

The only way to increase numbers more sustainably at this point is to have a really, really big patch/expansion that binds players for longer (unlikely at this point) or to enlarge the player pool.

For the past couple of months, sales have been steady on a low level. A discount could bring in many new players at this point imho. But if we assume the current owner-concurrent player ration of 1% that would also be a temporary boost, maybe for a few weeks instead of just one or two though. The funny thing is that the older civ games have a much worse owner-concurrent player ratio, but they have huge amounts of owners. At the current speed of weekly sales, 7 would take ages to reach that. On the other hand, the bad reviews may mean that many potential buyers wait for 60% or more reductions, and not the 20-30% we‘ll likely see for the summer sale.

 

[MutilationWave]

Just out of curiosity, is anyone in the camp of, "I don't like Civ 7 and I don't plan on playing it, but I also think Firaxis should keep supporting and improving it, and release expansions for it just like they did with the last few Civ games"? Mostly I see people who dislike the game rationalizing why it should be abandoned as quickly as possible in order to bring about Civ 8, a.k.a. Civ 3/4/5 with better graphics and maybe army commanders/navigable rivers, because that suits their personal preferences and interests. Meanwhile, people who do like Civ 7 enough to play it are advocating for the same continued support that Firaxis has given previous Civ versions, which likewise suits their interests (new playable content to look forward to in a short timeframe). It's pretty easy to discern the typical human cognitive process of reaching one's desired conclusion first (based on mainly emotion), then rationalizing why that desired conclusion is the correct one and calling it logic.

Personally, I'm fine either way as long as Firaxis doesn't disable my copy of Civ 7 so I can't play it anymore. For me, it's easily good enough to keep having fun with, even if it's not quite great. But I do think a failure of support for Civ 7 would result in fewer people taking a chance on Civ 8 when it is first released, even if the reviews are good, since most people think game reviewers have become compromised by publisher influence. The game would have to be discounted significantly in order to get enough buy-in (which might also work with the pricey Civ 7, as many have said, and may happen once Firaxis feels like they've improved Civ 7 enough to welcome in a lot of new customers). I never bought any Civ game before all of the expansions were released until this one, and it would be very easy to revert to that mindset if Firaxis bails early.

Your logic is sound. I'm in the same boat with buying civ games long after release until this one. It happened to coincide with me having a lot of free time.

What I don't understand is why people who haven't played the game because they heard it was bad post here at all.

 

[queenpea]

I won‘t say this is insignificant, but it is not unexpected. The patches can only stop the decline for some time, until all/most of the people in the player pool that come back every now and then played 1-3 games with the patch and turn to another game again.

The only way to increase numbers more sustainably at this point is to have a really, really big patch/expansion that binds players for longer (unlikely at this point) or to enlarge the player pool.

For the past couple of months, sales have been steady on a low level. A discount could bring in many new players at this point imho. But if we assume the current owner-concurrent player ration of 1% that would also be a temporary boost, maybe for a few weeks instead of just one or two though. The funny thing is that the older civ games have a much worse owner-concurrent player ratio, but they have huge amounts of owners. At the current speed of weekly sales, 7 would take ages to reach that. On the other hand, the bad reviews may mean that many potential buyers wait for 60% or more reductions, and not the 20-30% we‘ll likely see for the summer sale.

I agree! But I do think the negative trend on Steam reviews should be alarming to people working on the game or interested in its success.

 

[AD1730]

I just saw that Puddington trailer... whoever thought that would be a good idea for the tone they should take with how the game has done should have nothing to do with the game's marketing going forward. Just completely tone deaf.

 

[queenpea]

I just saw that Puddington trailer... whoever thought that would be a good idea for the tone they should take with how the game has done should have nothing to do with the game's marketing going forward. Just completely tone deaf.

Oh it’s not that bad! Personally it did very little for me, but it looks like it was a low budget bit of fun.

 

[AD1730]

Just out of curiosity, is anyone in the camp of, "I don't like Civ 7 and I don't plan on playing it, but I also think Firaxis should keep supporting and improving it, and release expansions for it just like they did with the last few Civ games"? Mostly I see people who dislike the game rationalizing why it should be abandoned as quickly as possible in order to bring about Civ 8, a.k.a. Civ 3/4/5 with better graphics and maybe army commanders/navigable rivers, because that suits their personal preferences and interests. Meanwhile, people who do like Civ 7 enough to play it are advocating for the same continued support that Firaxis has given previous Civ versions, which likewise suits their interests (new playable content to look forward to in a short timeframe). It's pretty easy to discern the typical human cognitive process of reaching one's desired conclusion first (based on mainly emotion), then rationalizing why that desired conclusion is the correct one and calling it logic.

I believe they should support it for a 5-year lifespan, because I don't think you can do less than that and harm the brand going forward. I believe they should move on to Civ 8 ASAP because Civ 7 has core features that can't be fixed and supporting a sinking ship for too long is not a good financial decision. At this point, changing these features (civ switching and ages, primarily) to the degree they need will upset a large amount of people, further polarizing the fanbase regarding this game.

But I do think a failure of support for Civ 7 would result in fewer people taking a chance on Civ 8 when it is first released, even if the reviews are good, since most people think game reviewers have become compromised by publisher influence.

Yes, we are now to the point with Youtubers that we were with the traditional gaming outlets.

 

[Kev1916]

Civ 7 should privately, quietly and slowly ( months not years ) abandoned . Key resources and any competent staff sent to other projects say Civ 8 Or other PC ventures.

This version of "Civ" should only have additional resources spent and retain in area's that perhaps have the most chance of growth - perhaps casual , console players with an increased Meta/Leveling up process.
Maybe more toons, cosmetic costume's , multiplayer events, leader boards, tournaments

 

[fantsu]

Nothing to be panicked about yet. V didn't even start up properly after 4 months of release on devices it was promised to. Took like 6 months + to even be able to play multiplayer. VII is still ahead in curve.

Not so sure if same will happen again, but this is normal so far, in modern Firaxis standards.

 

[MutilationWave]

Civ 7 should privately, quietly and slowly ( months not years ) abandoned . Key resources and any competent staff sent to other projects say Civ 8 Or other PC ventures.

This version of "Civ" should only have additional resources spent and retain in area's that perhaps have the most chance of growth - perhaps casual , console players with an increased Meta/Leveling up process.
Maybe more toons, cosmetic costume's , multiplayer events, leader boards, tournaments

Appealing to console players is, in my guestimation, what led to a broken release and garbage UI. I'm not all PC master race or anything, but certain games really need a mouse and keyboard. If the team didn't have to mess around to make sure the game ran and was navigable on what 5? different consoles plus PC then we would have received a better product, there's no doubt about it.

 

[user746383]

What I don't understand is why people who haven't played the game because they heard it was bad post here at all.

I have to guess they are long-term CivFanatics who are disappointed by what we got, and want to be part of discussions about how it could be better (or, lacking that, just to vent their sadness and disappoinment).

 

[user746383]

Depending on what you meant by ahead of the curve, Civ7 isn't doing comparatively well against other installments, at least with Steam numbers. The initial player count was absolutely dwarfed by Civ6, and both Civ5 and Civ6 held onto players better. Civ7 most closely aligns with the performance of Beyond Earth in terms of the launch peak and floor it found after a couple months. These are the stats aligned to release dates:

 

[fantsu]

Appealing to console players is, in my guestimation, what led to a broken release and garbage UI. I'm not all PC master race or anything, but certain games really need a mouse and keyboard. If the team didn't have to mess around to make sure the game ran and was navigable on what 5? different consoles plus PC then we would have received a better product, there's no doubt about it.

IDDQD not an PC master race?
Behaviour Interactive handled all the console ports not Firaxis. Firaxis was "involved", what ever that means. Theres no doubt? I would say there is huge doubt. The controls of the game are still worse on consoles than in VI, its clear that the miserable UI wasnt even made for consoles either. Its just bad, because it is.

But Aspyr being kicked out from porting was a blessing in disquise, they always made less work than needed. Firaxis had to try different route this time.

 

[GeneralZift]

Yes, we are now to the point with Youtubers that we were with the traditional gaming outlets.

Yeah holy **** I've been saying this forever man, YouTubers have really become exactly like the old gaming outlets we used to read and started to distrust. Dude, I get the positive outlook and your personal opinion but please be realistic and honest about the situation.

I read another headline "Is this the CRAZIEST PATCH for CIVILIZATION 7 Ever?"
"This PATCH fixed EVERYTHING!"
"CIVILIZATION 7 is Completely Different Now"

And it's like two footnotes "we added auto scouting" "the research tree now works like you expect"

Just once I want to read one of these headlines and have it actually be true

 

[user746383]

Civ 7 should privately, quietly and slowly ( months not years ) abandoned . Key resources and any competent staff sent to other projects say Civ 8 Or other PC ventures.

This version of "Civ" should only have additional resources spent and retain in area's that perhaps have the most chance of growth - perhaps casual , console players with an increased Meta/Leveling up process.
Maybe more toons, cosmetic costume's , multiplayer events, leader boards, tournaments

As a CivFanatic this would make me super sad, but if I was an investor I think I'd have to agree. My prediction is it will get the Beyond Earth treatment, in that it will get one more hail-mary expansion and then they will just move on to something else. I also worry they will close the studio, they seem to be on a losing streak after Midnight Suns and then this.

 

[misesfan]

As a CivFanatic this would make me super sad, but if I was an investor I think I'd have to agree. My prediction is it will get the Beyond Earth treatment, in that it will get one more hail-mary expansion and then they will just move on to something else. I also worry they will close the studio, they seem to be on a losing streak after Midnight Suns and then this.

I think you are correct, and it is kind of depressing to me. To think of Firaxis and all of the awesome games in the past that they have brought - all the Civs, X-Com, SMAC. I have spent a lifetime supporting this company and playing their games. My children have enjoyed their products, so its generational at this point with my family.

 

[AD1730]

As a CivFanatic this would make me super sad, but if I was an investor I think I'd have to agree. My prediction is it will get the Beyond Earth treatment, in that it will get one more hail-mary expansion and then they will just move on to something else. I also worry they will close the studio, they seem to be on a losing streak after Midnight Suns and then this.

Civ's IP wouldn't die though. Its overall track record would attract buyers if Take Two didn't want to assign it to another one of their studios.

 

[Gorbles]

I also worry they will close the studio, they seem to be on a losing streak after Midnight Suns and then this.

Marvel's Midnight Suns has a solid user review score at 80 - 82% on Steam.

From memory, it didn't sell as-expected, but "didn't sell" and "user reviews" are moderately divergent measures of success. You could monitor ongoing user reviews and concurrent players until the end of time, and if the game sold well initially, it sold well initially. We don't appear to have a huge amount of hard data on sales for VII however, nor has there been any statement r.e. its general profitability (unlike Midnight Suns).