Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[uppi]

Who are these "veterans"? I have played CivNet, do I count?

 

[aelf]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say to be honest. The point I was making is that it will probably go the way of Age4, in that it gets some minor updates and some DLCs with a smaller playerbase -- but it won't be quite as large or impactful as the earlier games.

The veterans didn't exactly like a lot of things with Age4 and the same is true with Civ7.

I think AoE3 and 4 are great comparisons. AoE2 loomed so large in the minds of the playerbase that it's impossible to follow up on it with nearly as much success. Many people just weren't willing to move on from what they considered a great game of its kind, couldn't accept any halfway major change to the formula.

 

[GeneralZift]

Who are these "veterans"? I have played CivNet, do I count?

Veterans just refers to the existing playerbase. Obviously it's a varied set of people, but they come with preconceptions of what they want from a sequel. So while they don't all work and think together, the majority combined have a general opinion about a title.

They're completely distinguished from newcomers, who have never played Civ before.

 

[GeneralZift]

I think AoE3 and 4 are great comparisons. AoE2 loomed so large in the minds of the playerbase that it's impossible to follow up on it with nearly as much success. Many people just weren't willing to move on from what they considered a great game of its kind, couldn't accept any major changes to the formula.

Well, in some way, yes.
But it's not just that people won't move on. The Developers behind Age3 admitted that they experimented too much about the game and it left some sour taste in some people's mouths.

Many years later, Age3 has a particular type of charm to it. But some of the mechanics of Age3 were just bad. That's why some people didn't move to it.

When it comes to Age4, it's exactly like Civ7, because it released with missing crucial content (like a Colour choice button), and very streamlined but somehow poorly balanced gameplay.

It's unfortunate by the way, I care about all of these games, but the development cycles just feel messy and unplanned. Again, in my opinion.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say to be honest. The point I was making is that it will probably go the way of Age4, in that it gets some minor updates and some DLCs with a smaller playerbase -- but it won't be quite as large or impactful as the earlier games.

The veterans didn't exactly like a lot of things with Age4 and the same is true with Civ7.
So again, instead of being a total failure as some are suggesting, I'm imagining Civ7 will go down this route.

I'm suggesting, it won't be the 'biggest Civ game so far' as were all the previous Civ titles during their respective times.

But AoE IV is a pretty well-reviewed game (by the users). AoE III is a very well-reviewed game (by the users).

AoE IV also had a lot more than "some minor updates", as I pointed out.

Like, this isn't opinion. Three and a half years of support, one free expansion wrapped in an Anniversary edition, one paid expansion and more smaller DLC in 2025 . . . these can't be described as "minor updates". AoE IV has seen significant investment, and its concurrent users is higher now than it was six months after its initial release.

Is the only thing that matters in AoE the opinions of AoE II veterans? What about AoE III veterans? That game's been out 20 years!

I thought it was an interesting parallel because both franchises are franchises where you have strong fanbases for each iteration. There are some players that think Civ IV is still the best Civ. There are some players that think AoE II is the best AoE. But you see AoE IV as being comparable to Civ VII, despite AoE IV managing to retain far higher concurrent numbers (relatively to the popularity of the franchise - AoE II: DE sits around 18 - 23k concurrent) and while having far better user reviews than Civ VII.

As it turns out, I like Civ VII and AoE IV. Whereas Civ VII's unpopularity is worth noting in terms of how the game needs to be supported, you can't make the same argument with AoE IV. Your opinion isn't reflected by any measurable majority.

It's ironic, because what AoE IV has received in terms of support would be fantastic for VII, in my opinion. If I knew VII was going to see solid support for the next four years, I'd breathe a huge sigh of relief. The post-release support patch cadence for that game blows both CiV and VI out of the water

 

[aelf]

But it's not just that people won't move on. The Developers behind Age3 admitted that they experimented too much about the game and it left some sour taste in some people's mouths.

"They're the same picture."

 

[GeneralZift]

"They're the same picture."

Good choice everyone likes -> Good change
Bad choice everyone likes -> Dumb luck
Good choice people don't like -> Clinging to the past
Bad choice people don't like -> Bad change

If they change something and people don't like it, it doesn't necessarily mean that the people are clinging to the past. Maybe the change just makes the game worse, more spammy, less fun, or something along those lines.

 

[GeneralZift]

But AoE IV is a pretty well-reviewed game (by the users). AoE III is a very well-reviewed game (by the users).

AoE IV also had a lot more than "some minor updates", as I pointed out.

Like, this isn't opinion. Three and a half years of support, one free expansion wrapped in an Anniversary edition, one paid expansion and more smaller DLC in 2025 . . . these can't be described as "minor updates". AoE IV has seen significant investment, and its concurrent users is higher now than it was six months after its initial release.

Is the only thing that matters in AoE the opinions of AoE II veterans? What about AoE III veterans? That game's been out 20 years!

I thought it was an interesting parallel because both franchises are franchises where you have strong fanbases for each iteration. There are some players that think Civ IV is still the best Civ. There are some players that think AoE II is the best AoE. But you see AoE IV as being comparable to Civ VII, despite AoE IV managing to retain far higher concurrent numbers (relatively to the popularity of the franchise - AoE II: DE sits around 18 - 23k concurrent) and while having far better user reviews than Civ VII.

As it turns out, I like Civ VII and AoE IV. Whereas Civ VII's unpopularity is worth noting in terms of how the game needs to be supported, you can't make the same argument with AoE IV. Your opinion isn't reflected by any measurable majority.

It's ironic, because what AoE IV has received in terms of support would be fantastic for VII, in my opinion. If I knew VII was going to see solid support for the next four years, I'd breathe a huge sigh of relief. The post-release support patch cadence for that game blows both CiV and VI out of the water

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I think Civ7 will get a lot of support and probably live a couple years - That's a GOOD thing.

However, the release did suck. And yes it sucked like the Age4 release, but even more!
Age4 had plenty of negative reviews at the start. So does Civ7.

And no, just because Age4 has the most concurrent players NOW doesn't mean it has somehow avoided this criticism.
Of course it SHOULD, it's the newest game in the series, it's up against 30 year old fossil games.

I don't know where you come up with the idea that only Age2 veteran opinions matter - because I never said that. The only thing I am saying and will ever say is that a successful title needs to appeal to ALL - beginners AND veterans for long term success - in MOST cases.

Hopefully I've made it clear so you can't somehow misunderstand it.

 

[bitula]

So current reviews went down to 34% (btw whats the threshold for very negative?), and for the first time drop in all time reviews to 47%. Interesting to see that DLC is on 8% - OK DLC, but 8% is super low. They will have this patch now which will remove the civ switch -> if I understand correctly you can choose now any civ, so your current one as well? Then it will be possible to remove the legacy path. Again nice, but I still think the main issue is the ages. But anyway I wonder how things will turn out after june 17 patch.

 

[queenpea]

The Journey So Far, and What’s Ahead ​

​

Now that we’ve talked about 1.2.2 and the couple other features above, let’s talk about where we are, and where we’re heading next. Since launch, we’ve been focused on improving the Civ VII experience by delivering highly requested features, cleaning up pain points, and responding to immediate areas of feedback. That work will still continue in June, July, and beyond.​

​

But we also want to acknowledge some of the bigger things players have been asking about. With Civ VII, we took some big swings with many features (Ages, Civ Switching, Commanders, Legacy Paths, Legends & Mementoes, Towns, and more!). Our goal: move beyond static empire-building and into something more dynamic, where your civilization evolves and reinvents itself over time.​

​

That being said, we also hear that some of these features haven’t landed quite as we'd hoped in their current implementation. Specifically, here are a few recurring themes we’ve seen in player feedback:​

• Age Transitions can feel abrupt
• Game replayability needs more depth
• There's room for improving the player's sense of empire identity and continuity throughout a multi-Age campaign

These are significant areas of the game that are incredibly important to get right, but are more complex to solve. Addressing this feedback in a satisfying way will take time, over the course of several updates. That said, you’ll start to see some smaller changes in July focused on end of Age countdowns and improvements to Age Transitions. For the longer-term and broader changes, we’ll share more detailed plans here when we’re ready. We’re invested in making these changes and empowering you to enjoy what sets Civ VII apart.​

​

And finally, a heartfelt thank you from all of us here at Firaxis. To the players who have been loving Civ VII, your excitement, support, screenshots, and fanart mean the world to this team. Thank you also to the players sticking with us through every update and patch. And for those of you that have stronger criticisms to share, thank you too. That feedback helps us make better decisions as developers and build a stronger, better entry for Civilization. All that to say – we’re lucky to have a community that cares this much about Civ VII, and we’re committed to continuing to earn that level of dedication.​

I find this note from the 1.2.2 announcement to be extremely encouraging. Firaxis is aware of its audience and is absorbing criticism. This level of transparency fills me with confidence that the game will continue to get better--and not only at its edges.

 

[protocol7]

It would have been funny if they were like “btw haters go make your own subforum and yell into the void instead of bothering us”.

 

[bitula]

I find this note from the 1.2.2 announcement to be extremely encouraging. Firaxis is aware of its audience and is absorbing criticism. This level of transparency fills me with confidence that the game will continue to get better--and not only at its edges.

Well I don't know it sounds like: "everythins is great but there are some areas which could be improved" vs. admitting bad game design decisions.

 

[queenpea]

Well I don't know it sounds like: "everythins is great but there are some areas which could be improved" vs. admitting bad game design decisions.

How do you figure that?

But we also want to acknowledge some of the bigger things players have been asking about. With Civ VII, we took some big swings with many features (Ages, Civ Switching, Commanders, Legacy Paths, Legends & Mementoes, Towns, and more!). Our goal: move beyond static empire-building and into something more dynamic, where your civilization evolves and reinvents itself over time.

That being said, we also hear that some of these features haven’t landed quite as we'd hoped in their current implementation. Specifically, here are a few recurring themes we’ve seen in player feedback:

This means that they are working on core systems within VII. They then thank players for feedback and criticism.

If you are waiting for flagellation, then I think you are out of luck.

 

[protocol7]

As long as they make it better for everyone, which they seem to be doing through providing options, that’s as good or better than any apology for previous mistakes at least to me.

 

[bitula]

How do you figure that?


This means that they are working on core systems within VII. They then thank players for feedback and criticism.

If you are waiting for flagellation, then I think you are out of luck.

Yeah but, we took some big swings with many features (Ages, Civ Switching, Commanders, Legacy Paths, Legends & Mementoes, Towns, and more!) - sounds like all good ideas/concepts/design decisions which require additional work vs. just bad ideas/useless features (some). Regarding flagellation, yeah I guess that wont happen.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yeah but, we took some big swings with many features (Ages, Civ Switching, Commanders, Legacy Paths, Legends & Mementoes, Towns, and more!) - sounds like all good ideas/concepts/design decisions which require additional work vs. just bad ideas/useless features (some). Regarding flagellation, yeah I guess that wont happen.

But it's true, those decisions weren't universally bad. A lot of players genuinely enjoy Civ7 (even among those who left negative reviews) and its new features.

There are things, which are universally bad, like bugs, or weak UI, or lack of options to set the game, etc. but they are getting fixed very actively

 

[Dreadnought]

I actually feel like that message is a big admission of failure, and is as close to self-flagellation we'll see from a corporate spokesperson.

 

[Gorbles]

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I think Civ7 will get a lot of support and probably live a couple years - That's a GOOD thing.

I'm not. I'm correcting your incorrect claims about AoE IV, which is another game I both like and play

AoE IV is in its fourth year, for the record. I even said if Civ VII gets that kind of support, it'd be great.

But you keep lowballing the support AoE IV got

Age4 had plenty of negative reviews at the start.

Also incorrect. 80-odd% positive on launch.

I don't know where you come up with the idea that only Age2 veteran opinions matter - because I never said that. The only thing I am saying and will ever say is that a successful title needs to appeal to ALL - beginners AND veterans for long term success - in MOST cases.

Hopefully I've made it clear so you can't somehow misunderstand it.

You're the one who claimed that AoE IV - like Civ VII - wasn't able to appeal to everyone. My point was twofold.

Firstly, that no sequel in a franchise tends to have universal appeal (even SC2 didn't manage that), and that AoE IV launched to much higher user scores than Civ VII.

Secondly, as I already mentioned, each game in the franchise has its own veterans. Should AoE IV listen to vets from II, III or both?

Should Civ listen to vets from II, III, IV, V or VI (given that it's been a good while VI has been out for now)?

These are honest questions. I want to hear your answers.

 

[Core Imposter]

"in their current implementation." means that ages won't be nixed. That will cap the breadth and depth of this iteration.

 

[Leucarum]

"in their current implementation." means that ages won't be nixed. That will cap the breadth and depth of this iteration.

You can Ship of Theseus ages though if you make more and things stick around between ages. If you retain units and positions, building bonuses, AI relations/alliances/wars, and civ switching becomes an option... At what point have you removes ages without removing ages?

I've been guessing this is the way to go if I'm honest, give as many game settings as possible to the players. 7's playerbase is fragmented in what they want so I don't know if anything else works! Let people who want ages have them, let people who don't want them nerf them into irrelevance.