Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Kwami]

You can go over it as many times as your fingers can type, them still dont make it the facts or will change my opinion

No Civ DLC to my recollection was ever released without a leader to go with it or had one already in the game .

No DLC in any version of Civ was sold with just one leader , Caesar was link and free

The Viking scenario pack had a fair few other items included.

No idea re your idea of inflation but one Civ at $ 6 to play for 1/3 of a game, sounds a lot like more expensive to me.

Thou at least with the new toon's you can gain items and level up

You continue to refuse to accept that leaders and civilizations are not tied together in this game and that there will always be civilizations without leaders and leaders. There's no help for refusal to accept reality.

Civilization VI was released in 2016. A single civilization DLC was sold for $4.99. After inflation, that would be $6.68 today. A single civilization DLC for Civilization VII is currently also selling for $4.99. It is, therefore, cheaper than previous DLC.

(I will grant that DLC used to come with scenarios and it's a shame that it no longer does, but I don't think most players bothered with the scenarios, anyway. Maybe resources are better spent elsewhere.)

 

[Krajzen]

I still can't get over how much has this debacle got worse because of the enormous delay between the games release and the access to mod tools and Steam Workshop. Is it mandated by 2K or just part of the "de facto early access" strategy?

of all strategy games that could get this FOUR MONTH delay this has to be the worst

Warhammer 3 had quite contentious release (though not nearly as bad) due to the very strangely designed initial campaign, but guess what? Just like almost all other big strategy games, whether CA's or Paradox' or whoever, it had mod tools since day 0. Players immediately got to fix and tweak and redesign and customize stuff beyond waiting for patches, and it clearly had a great impact on the game's ultimate success.

Imagine if Civ7 started with some decent moddability on release. Boom, one way or another people would improve the UI, tweak ages and transitions, modify map scripts, add more legacy paths, find some way to reintroduce "classic mode" persistent civs, start designing new leaders and civs to fill the gaps, make religion bearable etc etc. There is no way it wouldn't have impacted the player count positively.

But thanks to this briliant delay we are going to get modding capabilities at the time when plenty of the potential modders and their players have already stopped playing, maybe for good.

 

[MutilationWave]

I still can't get over how much has this debacle got worse because of the enormous delay between the games release and the access to mod tools and Steam Workshop. Is it mandated by 2K or just part of the "de facto early access" strategy?

of all strategy games that could get this FOUR MONTH delay this has to be the worst

Warhammer 3 had quite contentious release (though not nearly as bad) due to the very strangely designed initial campaign, but guess what? Just like almost all other big strategy games, whether CA's or Paradox' or whoever, it had mod tools since day 0. Players immediately got to fix and tweak and redesign and customize stuff beyond waiting for patches, and it clearly had a great impact on the game's ultimate success.

Imagine if Civ7 started with some decent moddability on release. Boom, one way or another people would improve the UI, tweak ages and transitions, modify map scripts, add more legacy paths, find some way to reintroduce "classic mode" persistent civs, start designing new leaders and civs to fill the gaps, make religion bearable etc etc. There is no way it wouldn't have impacted the player count positively.

But thanks to this briliant delay we are going to get modding capabilities at the time when plenty of the potential modders and their players have already stopped playing, maybe for good.

Totally agree.

I am pretty ignorant on the details of modding so please correct me. But isn't steam workshop equivalent to what we already have? I mean yeah it's easier to use and integrated into steam, but is it actually a more powerful or deeper modding system?

I was under the impression that "mod tools" and workshop were pretty different things, with the former having the power to drastically change the game and the latter very much not so.

 

[itix]

I always buy my games from Steam because they have Workshop. It is just so much easier than hunting mods from random websites.

 

[GeneralZift]

I still can't get over how much has this debacle got worse because of the enormous delay between the games release and the access to mod tools and Steam Workshop. Is it mandated by 2K or just part of the "de facto early access" strategy?

Imagine if Civ7 started with some decent moddability on release. Boom, one way or another people would improve the UI, tweak ages and transitions, modify map scripts, add more legacy paths, find some way to reintroduce "classic mode" persistent civs, start designing new leaders and civs to fill the gaps, make religion bearable etc etc. There is no way it wouldn't have impacted the player count positively.

But thanks to this briliant delay we are going to get modding capabilities at the time when plenty of the potential modders and their players have already stopped playing, maybe for good.

I actually hear about this opinion a lot but I disagree slightly.
While the modding community is great for saving lots of players in-the-know, it doesn't do anything for the vast majority of players who don't use mods.
So I actually feel like it would have done very little. So yes it's amazing to fine-tune things as you say, but most people won't really see all these different options, maybe they will get overwhelmed, maybe they won't enjoy the idea of having to basically redesign the game that they JUST purchased just to play it in a way that they enjoy.

Also, avoiding mods on release is unfortunately de facto gaming policy... you may end up fracturing your player base too soon. But better than having no player base at all, am I right?

 

[Hannibal XIII]

I still can't get over how much has this debacle got worse because of the enormous delay between the games release and the access to mod tools and Steam Workshop. Is it mandated by 2K or just part of the "de facto early access" strategy?

of all strategy games that could get this FOUR MONTH delay this has to be the worst

very reminiscent to me of how civ vi never got a map editor/sdk toolkit as good as the one for civ v despite its long lifespan as a game

 

[Kwami]

I still can't get over how much has this debacle got worse because of the enormous delay between the games release and the access to mod tools and Steam Workshop. Is it mandated by 2K or just part of the "de facto early access" strategy?

of all strategy games that could get this FOUR MONTH delay this has to be the worst

Warhammer 3 had quite contentious release (though not nearly as bad) due to the very strangely designed initial campaign, but guess what? Just like almost all other big strategy games, whether CA's or Paradox' or whoever, it had mod tools since day 0. Players immediately got to fix and tweak and redesign and customize stuff beyond waiting for patches, and it clearly had a great impact on the game's ultimate success.

Imagine if Civ7 started with some decent moddability on release. Boom, one way or another people would improve the UI, tweak ages and transitions, modify map scripts, add more legacy paths, find some way to reintroduce "classic mode" persistent civs, start designing new leaders and civs to fill the gaps, make religion bearable etc etc. There is no way it wouldn't have impacted the player count positively.

But thanks to this briliant delay we are going to get modding capabilities at the time when plenty of the potential modders and their players have already stopped playing, maybe for good.

I'm not at all surprised. Civ VI didn't get workshop support until exactly four months after release with the "Australian Summer" update on February 21, 2017. That's also when they added ModBuddy, FireTuner, and the art tools.

But I am annoyed. I'm tired of manually managing my UI mods.

 

[CliffCo]

I'm not at all surprised. Civ VI didn't get workshop support until exactly four months after release with the "Australian Summer" update on February 21, 2017. That's also when they added ModBuddy, FireTuner, and the art tools.

But I am annoyed. I'm tired of manually managing my UI mods.

Do you not use the CivMods app.?

 

[Kwami]

Do you not use the CivMods app.?

No, because I don't use software from unknown sources. I'm paranoid like that.

 

[MutilationWave]

No, because I don't use software from unknown sources. I'm paranoid like that.

I don't know if it makes a difference for you but it was made by forum member and modder @leonardify. In fact it was acting up and they fixed it today. I really appreciate their work.

 

[Quintillus]

I still can't get over how much has this debacle got worse because of the enormous delay between the games release and the access to mod tools and Steam Workshop. Is it mandated by 2K or just part of the "de facto early access" strategy?

of all strategy games that could get this FOUR MONTH delay this has to be the worst

Warhammer 3 had quite contentious release (though not nearly as bad) due to the very strangely designed initial campaign, but guess what? Just like almost all other big strategy games, whether CA's or Paradox' or whoever, it had mod tools since day 0. Players immediately got to fix and tweak and redesign and customize stuff beyond waiting for patches, and it clearly had a great impact on the game's ultimate success.

Imagine if Civ7 started with some decent moddability on release. Boom, one way or another people would improve the UI, tweak ages and transitions, modify map scripts, add more legacy paths, find some way to reintroduce "classic mode" persistent civs, start designing new leaders and civs to fill the gaps, make religion bearable etc etc. There is no way it wouldn't have impacted the player count positively.

But thanks to this briliant delay we are going to get modding capabilities at the time when plenty of the potential modders and their players have already stopped playing, maybe for good.

The other aspect of that is that the poor reception on release and controversial mechanics, including that reviews got worse, not better, once people had time to digest the game a bit, has meant that some of those who modded for previous iterations wound up not buying in altogether. Which, best case, they buy the game later and start modding, and perhaps the modding tools are good then. More likely in most cases is that they stick with prior games or eventually more on to other games.

Modding tools on day one would have helped, but IMO it's one of those things that can take a game from mediocre to mostly good, or good to great. It can also help give a game a long tail and keep the audience around to buy future expansions, something Civ has historically been good at. I think the bigger problem with VII was that the game as a whole was not in a state where enough people enjoyed it at release.

I consider myself to be in that boat - strongly considering diving in early for the first time since IV, and probably modding or creating modding tools, but skeptical of some of the controversial decisions such as civ switching pre-release, waited for reviews, and... why would I buy in now rather than play Civ III through VI, or Paradox games? I'm not going to make mods or modding tools just to be Firaxis's hero, I want to have an expectation of enjoying the base game first. I certainly played and loved III for a long time before getting into the modding scene.

It could be good in the medium-term for the modding communities of prior Civ games. But long-term, the series needs a healthy current iteration to bring in new players.

 

[Kwami]

I don't know if it makes a difference for you but it was made by forum member and modder @leonardify. In fact it was acting up and they fixed it today. I really appreciate their work.

It's nothing personal. I'm just super picky about what I install. And with workshop support coming next week, there's really no reason to switch to that program now.

 

[Kev1916]

"You continue to refuse to accept that leaders and civilizations are not tied together in this game and that there will always be civilizations without leaders and leaders. There's no help for refusal to accept reality."

Every man and his dug are well aware that 2k are selling Civs without leaders , Carthage anyone, who is the great Khan of the Mongols agan?

Stop making things up , or carry on in your mouse wheel .

C'MON - "there will always be civilizations without leaders" - another weird statement I thought I would never hear about a "Civ" game

Buying single Civ's without leaders ( unlike before ) to last for 1/3 of game is not good value , Also maybe check the review for the DLC 'S or here you go 90% NEGATIVE .

 

[stealth_nsk]

This article is not about civilization, but it's interesting read about how game studios perceive our beloved metric of concurrent players https://www.ign.com/articles/inzoi-...-performance-because-its-a-single-player-game

 

[protocol7]

To some extent I suppose it's true the game is a success from a capitalist point of view if they sell a lot of copies, even if very few people actually play it.

It also doesn’t seem fully consistent to show that it’s doing the same as a 16 year old game in the same genre, which is a single player game that has had longevity in player count, and at the same time say that single player games are games where people move on quickly so it’s expected for player counts to drop off immediately.

When I was at EA we shipped a game that nearly killed the entire franchise. It sold well, though, but then nobody ever bought that game again for many many years. I vaguely remember us saying similar things about how sales are the most important metric, over good reviews and having players. Nobody really believed it though, and it was proven wrong eventually. It’s probably even more true now with how gaming communities have evolved.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

This article is not about civilization, but it's interesting read about how game studios perceive our beloved metric of concurrent players https://www.ign.com/articles/inzoi-...-performance-because-its-a-single-player-game

Well, that vertical drop surely looks impressive.

 

[protocol7]

Holy moly, no wonder they are trying to figure out a positive spin on things. That’s an incredible nose dive. I suppose if they’d managed to keep their players and their reviews positive they wouldn’t have to be explaining how the metric doesn’t actually matter if you think about it from a certain perspective, even though other studios celebrate it when lots of people play their games.

Fortunately civ is nowhere near as bad shape. They at least are still talking about how to get more players instead of explaining why it doesn’t matter that there aren’t any.

 

[stealth_nsk]

To some extent I suppose it's true the game is a success from a capitalist point of view if they sell a lot of copies, even if very few people actually play it.

It also doesn’t seem fully consistent to show that it’s doing the same as a 16 year old game in the same genre, which is a single player game that has had longevity in player count, and at the same time say that single player games are games where people move on quickly so it’s expected for player counts to drop off immediately.

When I was at EA we shipped a game that nearly killed the entire franchise. It sold well, though, but then nobody ever bought that game again for many many years. I vaguely remember us saying similar things about how sales are the most important metric, over good reviews and having players. Nobody really believed it though, and it was proven wrong eventually. It’s probably even more true now with how gaming communities have evolved.

But sales as a metric don't exist in vacuum.

From one side, sales are derived from how people perceive the game. And for games, which are mostly paid off with additional content (like Civilization since, probably, Civ4) it's not a question of marketing, it's a question of how significant number of players actually enjoy the game.

From the other side, sales are the thing which fund game company. Good sales allow game studios continue their support, making patches, etc. Bad sales sometimes lead to studios being closed.

In this point of view, sales are actually the most important metric, because it ties everything together.

 

[protocol7]

There are whole businesses that work on buying a trusted, well known brand, cutting quality, and selling crap. Once done cashing in on all the goodwill, they use the money to go buy another brand and do the same thing. In that sense the company in the article was hugely successful.

So while it’s true you have to have sales, you also have to maintain your brand and trust or else you fail in the slightly further out term instead of immediately. Designing your game to charge a lot of money but then have nobody play and give it bad reviews because it’s unfinished or whatever while you laugh all the way to the bank is not a good long term strategy.

But luckily, civ hasn’t done that I don’t think. And I hope nobody is telling them that they should think about it that way.

 

[UWHabs]

If I have to choose between great reviews and bad sales, or bad reviews and great sales, I think I'd have to pick great sales numbers, because you can live to fight another day. You can be rated 100%, but if people aren't buying your product, you will go out of business fast.

Now, that being said, if you're talking about something which is potentially the cash cow for the company, that you expect a 5-10 year life on, and that will rely on years of DLC to propel it, and your tradeoff is average ratings vs great sales, or great ratings vs average sales, then yeah, I might lean towards being happy with the average sales numbers, knowing/hoping that the fans will come back once you start getting some sales going, and they will continue to be happy customers for the life of the product.

Of course, every game is different. If you're talking about a game you sit down, play for 15 minutes a day, and do that, it's one thing. But civ is a game where a session is more often measured in hours, then I would say concurrent counts matter a little more.