Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[trev1972]

I am sorry to see the cc have mental health issues, as i would be with anyone.

From a personal POV, if a content creator makes a living from covering a particular game series then i always bear that in mind when they review or rate that game. It is in their interest to encourage people to play the game as they depend on people watching them play it. It doesn't make them dishonest or anything like that- but it is going to colour their perspective.

I am also extremely sceptical about reviews from online critics- i dont know their financial arrangement with the publishers but their scores are often dramatically different to the player experience.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The influencer is kind of the modern door to door salesperson. There's this dichotomy where I think everyone with an interest in video games on some level would love a career in playing them and talking to others about them. But at the same time, it becomes a bit sleazy with money involved, and the trust level lowers. Sales people get the door slammed in their face and told to go away a lot, they have to have a thick skin and know that putting your face and personality to a brand and delivering it into people's homes isn't always going to be well received or wanted.

Once influencers take that check from a company they effectively transition into a salesperson in the eyes of many in their audience, but I think they still see themselves the same way as someone who loves the game, and just gets paid even more for saying it. Trouble is the trust in the honesty of their opinion is gone - money makes everything transactional, including relationships with audiences. If the transaction isn't well received, they want their money - or in a YouTube audiences case time - back, and will let you know you've wasted it.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's a job, and if he is primarily playing this game and making content out of it, obviously for him it is far worse if the game fails than for the average civ-community-member.
I imagine that with the negative ratings he would have been reading abusive comments, likening him to a shill etc. But this is one of the risks of being a game-based content creator; people have pivoted to other games for this reason.

 

[AD1730]

I'm not really sure you can trust a paid brand spokesman/influencer even if not technically working on the marketing team at the moment, because for them to get paid again they can't share their real opinions on the topic you were paid for if they differ. This is nothing to do with civ or Potato in particular. Someone who works as an influencer for a brand has every incentive to make sure they get paid again in the future, even if they aren't being paid in this very moment. It's one reason I'd never take that payment in the first place. Or do you really think that if he shared negative opinions as soon as his first check cleared that they'd hire him again? Maybe one way to get out of it is to make a public pronouncement that you'll never take a dime from them again, then there's no perverse incentives.

It's literally what brands are buying is influencer credibility, so they can cash in their credibility and convert it into sales. I feel bad for people who's actual self is their own brand, and they sell their own self and their personal credibility to other brands, but again - that's why I'd never take that check in the first place. That's a nightmare, and at the more extreme end of things spokesmen who just sold their credibility have gone to jail for selling their credibility to Bitcoin pump and dump scams. There's no "I was temporarily being controlled by a marketing team and anything I said then should be compartmentalised and be considered as unrelated to any actual opinion I might hold" escape hatch.

I do understand its the nature of the business, I just disagree there's a way to sell your credibility and also keep your credibility fully intact, and you're (as an influencer who sells yourself to brands) probably better off understanding that you can't have your cake and eat it too than expecting others to feel the same. You can sell your credibility and still be a good person, but you can't unsell it.

For me, I see the problems with payment and early access as one in the same. Even if you aren't paid directly, having early access as a content creator gives you a leg up on the competition, letting you get videos out during the hype cycle of an upcoming game. Thus, while the pay may not come directly from the developer/publisher, the developer/publisher creates conditions for a third party payment to occur.

The YouTube gaming commentator/influencer became a thing because the industry captured traditional gaming journalism and lost consumer trust. However, now the YouTube sphere is captured. The solution is to be the most "uninfluencer" influencer that you can be. Don't accept money from publishers/developers. Decline early access and don't visit the studio or exclusive press events. Don't give studios your address for goodie boxes. You don't get the comforts and trappings of being an influencer, but you maintain more of your credibility.

 

[Dreadnought]

Firaxis isn't forcing the content creators to say good things about the game, but when the company flies them to the studio, wines and dines them, etc. due to their content, there is an unspoken need to continue to be positive or risk losing such prestigious invitations next time.

 

[GeneralZift]

This, again, is an assumption you're making to rationalise away positive opinions he may in fact sincerely hold. It's also a completely separate point to the one I was responding to.

Yes, content creators portrayed content in a certain way to drive channel engagement. But this happens for all types of "ways" of portraying content. There are channels that thrive on negative takes to drive engagement. There are channels that thrive on positive takes. There are channels that aim for neutral / information-only kind of a "style". Most / all content creators develop a personal "style" over time. It's a part of being a face on a screen that others can connect to.

It's a part of the industry that is being a content creator. It doesn't mean that their opinions aren't at the same time honest. Honest or dishonest, information or misinformation - these are separate axes to the tone of any content creator's channel. They intersect, but they don't align 1:1.

I'm not discarding his positive opinion, I'm saying, it's tough to take opinions sincerely from people who stand to benefit from having a certain opinion, or who maybe unknowingly biased towards a certain opinion because of the circumstances that they are in.

And yes, that affects all content creators, such as influencers, general media, news agency, etc.
So we shouldn't treat content creators like they are unbiased sources of opinion OR information.

It's like watching Fox News and expecting them to have no political leaning. Obviously they have particular audiences and particular backing and so on.

In our case, (some) Civ influencers are more likely to pander towards a positive outlook on Civ so that they get more traction on the game. And these people are getting paid to play it early too.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not discarding his positive opinion, I'm saying, it's tough to take opinions sincerely from people who stand to benefit from having a certain opinion

These are the same thing.

Comparisons to politicised news channels aren't a good fit, nor can I respond to them in depth in a games subforum.

At the end of the day, it's a choice you're making. It's bias. The same thing you're saying these creators have. We all have bias. I can point it out, but that's all I can do. It's just my opinion after all.

 

[Kyriakos]

These are the same thing.

Comparisons to politicised news channels aren't a good fit, nor can I respond to them in depth in a games subforum.

At the end of the day, it's a choice you're making. It's bias. The same thing you're saying these creators have. We all have bias. I can point it out, but that's all I can do. It's just my opinion after all.

There's a difference between having bias for monetary reason, and having bias for general reasons The former creates a conflict of interest, a very well-studied phenomenon.

Not that an example is needed - you certainly understand - but there's no harm in providing one:
It's one thing if I suggested that someone buys a book by Lovecraft, and quite a different thing to suggest they buy one from a publishing house I was working with (not that I would ever be suggesting such - I hate conflicts of interest).

 

[aelf]

It is very sad that someone should be distressed over the state of a game.

That is not what it is.

 

[Gorbles]

There's a difference between having bias for monetary reason, and having bias for general reasons The former creates a conflict of interest, a very well-studied phenomenon.

I already covered this in an earlier post, maybe you missed it. Historical evidence is not current evidence. I'm not interested in going in circles.

As for conflicts of interest, well, there's a lot of that going about. Quite a few different reasons why one might emerge.

 

[Kyriakos]

I already covered this in an earlier post, maybe you missed it. Historical evidence is not current evidence. I'm not interested in going in circles.

As for conflicts of interest, well, theres a lot of that going about.

But I feel we should be able to agree that it's not the same to be generally biased (for a multitude of often chaotic reasons) and to be biased because you directly stand to make/lose money on the thing you speak about.
Going by Potato's video (which I watched), his income depends on content about specific games, and Civ7 had been the main one (then he was forced to stop making videos, which caused strife).

 

[Gorbles]

But I feel we should be able to agree that it's not the same to be generally biased (for a multitude of often chaotic reasons) and to be biased because you directly stand to make/lose money on the thing you speak about.

Except there are people who make money about being negative r.e. the tone of their content. Or outright silly / tongue-in-cheek (I'm thinking of the guy who posts videos about how game balance is "broken", covering major games while he does).

The tone is irrelevant to the monetisation of the channel. It's a job, at the level these people do it. Am I biased for my company simply because I work there? Hardly. Do I like what I work on? Not always.

So why assume the same here? The answer is: because you want there to be, irrespective of any actual evidence. Or you're being accurate a devil's advocate (famously, a figure that is lacking for advocates). Delete as appropriate

And this is before we get onto whether or not the bias even affects the work - similar to people who can separate out their negative bias from their criticism. Some absolutely can. Others, less so.

 

[Kyriakos]

Except there are people who make money about being negative r.e. the tone of their content. Or outright silly / tongue-in-cheek (I'm thinking of the guy who posts videos about how game balance is "broken", covering major games while he does).

The tone is irrelevant to the monetisation of the channel. It's a job, at the level these people do it. Am I biased for my company simply because I work there? Hardly. Do I like what I work on? Not always.

So why assume the same here? The answer is: because you want there to be, irrespective of any actual evidence. Or you're being accurate a devil's advocate (famously, a figure that is lacking for advocates). Delete as appropriate

And this is before we get onto whether or not the bias even affects the work - similar to people who can separate out their negative bias from their criticism. Some absolutely can. Others, less so.

But you do agree that it is different to say a CFC forum poster is biased, and to say that one who is making money out of a game has a clear conflict of interest, right?

 

[Gorbles]

But you do agree that it is different to say a CFC forum poster is biased, and to say that one who is making money out of a game has a clear conflict of interest, right?

I mean, only by the technicality that one can be accused of a conflict of interest more easily than the other.

Bias is still bias. It still has to be dealt with (or ignored, I guess). If you want to argue something that's "technically correct", I'm afraid I don't find that very interesting. A conflict of interest is only one factor in judging whether someone's opinion is valuable, in my opinion. And focusing on that any time a content creator says something positive about Civ VII is most definitely an observable pattern around these parts

Like I said at the start. It's a rationalisation strategy that negates the need for actually engaging with the content on its own merits.

 

[protocol7]

I don’t have time to judge every paid ad or piece of marketing on its own merits, I’m so surrounded by ads despite doing everything to block them that I just can’t. If I can ignore ads I’m cool with that, even if I miss in theory some great viewpoint now and then held in bit of sponsored content.

 

[Gorbles]

If you don't have the time to engage with any of it, the main rationale is the lack of time. Nothing wrong with that. I have a full time job and two kids. I barely have time for playing games.

That's different from singling out a single content creator for being so allegedly comprised by a past activity that anything they ever say about a video game is inherently (and forever) suspect.

To be clear: I'm not saying you, protocol7, are saying this. I'm differentiating the specific position I'm arguing against from anyone elses', including yours r.e. available time to vet online content.

 

[protocol7]

Makes sense, thanks for explaining Gorbles. I agree it’s totally unfair to single out a specific content creator, because it’s the nature of how they make money for the most part.

 

[queenpea]

It looks like this was the first weekend when player peak was below 11k. Steam reviews continue to trend downwards. We are now at 48.3% positive.

 

[protocol7]

I knew they bungled the launch a bit but I’d have never guessed that four months later reviews would be trending significantly down (48% overall positive to 36% recently positive). I assumed Firaxis would have done something to try to turn it around by now through more meaningful patches or a giveaway or something. Maybe their best bet is to rush modding tools so the fans can fix it?

 

[Kev1916]

36% review score re last month figures