Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Verified_Confection_Being]

For me I’m not 100% sure what the fix is, I just know I have more fun if I pick up 4, 5, or 6 so that’s what I do. Though I keep trying 7 whenever there’s an update, so there’s something there. I hope they figure it out.

I would pay expansion money for an update to Civ V that made it playable on the latest apple OS so that I could play with one of my friends again.

I would also pay silly money just for them to tweak the net code enough the make Civ V stable in multiplayer

The only reason I don't still play it regularly is because it's multiplayer is about as usable as a trumpet someone's done a wet fart in.

If they throw in some extra mechanics to interact more with the map, too that'd be amazing.

I would come back to Civ V in a heartbeat, and I know a ton of people who feel that way.

 

[Civinator]

Decoupling leaders didn't lead to the Mississippians, in my opinion, but civ switching did.

That is exactly what I posted.

 

[Leucarum]

I really like mixing and matching Civs/Leaders. The leader abilities have for the most part been picked well to work with multiple civs and the combinations are really fun. But then I don't mind it immersion-wise. Your leader is already an immortal avatar... I find Civ switching does far more to mess up my immersion, as it means I stop caring as much what civ my opponents are playing. My vote would be to keep mixing/matching but ditch civ switching...

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think its a mix, some are waiting for a polished and cheaper game, others hate the switching and resets

It all depends on which population in that mix is dominant

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That is exactly what I posted.

That was in reference to the fact that we do at least know the name of a Mississippian leader, which is Tuskaloosa. That would better be served for potential civilization that we would not know a leader of like the Olmecs or Minoans.

 

[Civinator]

That was in reference to the fact that we do at least know the name of a Mississippian leader, which is Tuskaloosa.

I see. But I think, Tuskaloosa is no leader suited for the antiquity age as he appeared during the Age of Exploration.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Back on the topic of the patient being stable, we've got a peak of 8,100 today.

That's 1,300 down on this time last week, but still about 1,000 above the nadir of the week before. We are back to drops though, and big ones at that - 14% player attrition in 1 week, from an already not great base

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I see. But I think, Tuskaloosa is no leader suited for the antiquity age as he appeared during the Age of Exploration.

Okay, I see. That to me would be harder to do considering civs like Khmer would probably have all of their leaders in the Exploration Age, but gameplaywise they are better put in the Antiquity.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Okay, I see. That to me would be harder to do considering civs like Khmer would probably have all of their leaders in the Exploration Age, but gameplaywise they are better put in the Antiquity.

Completely disagree that Khmer are better gameplay wise in antiquity. I think the history department at Firaxis have been hitting the Ayahuasca too hard

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Completely disagree that Khmer are better gameplay wise in antiquity. I think the history department at Firaxis have been hitting the Ayahuasca too hard

Considering they are the first major unified culture to form in Southeast Asia, that's at least my rationale, being the progenitor civ for all others in that region. My one complaint is that they unfortunately are not a part of the religious game, but that's how it is for the Maurya as well.
I'd feel the same way about the Norse being in Antiquity as well being the progenitor of the Normans and other Scandinavian civs, even if they also would make sense in the Exploration Age.

 

[stealth_nsk]

First of all, if we want to be that precise, it’s not necessarily true that a game with a lower percentage of positive reviews is perceived as worse overall by the public compared to one with a higher percentage.

Yes. I critique this metric here often for this very reason. But there's no more precise measurable metric, at least if we look at Steam.

Also, you consider "player peak" as a measure of "player counts", which is quite limited. For example, Civilization VII had a good player peak, mainly due to preorders, but it was received so poorly afterward that its player count dropped drastically.

So, which metric do you propose? Something like week peak after 3 months? Or some other numbers? Any metric here would be arbitrary.

That said, it’s clear that other factors influence player counts—most notably, media coverage. Indie games like Vampire Survivors usually get very little media attention, whereas AAA titles like Monster Hunter enjoy extensive coverage, which helps sustain high player counts even if the player reception is lukewarm.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

However, it should be completely clear that simply being the "most played game of the month" (or having the highest player peak, as you considered) doesn’t mean a game is "the best game released that month" in terms of public reception. This was never my claim, and it certainly isn’t the definition of "correlation" or "unrelated data".

That said, despite these nuances, it seems evident to me that player reception does have some correlation with player counts—we can only debate whether that correlation is weak or strong. Naturally, you can bring up thousands of examples where this correlation doesn’t hold, and I can provide millions where it clearly does, so it's your choice how much time we can lose here

Yes, as I wrote, the correlation exists. I don't want to spend time on measuring it statistically (we need least agree on exact metrics, see above). But based on samples I looked at it's pretty evident that the correlation (at least for metrics I used) is extremely weak.

 

[Krajzen]

My one complaint is that they unfortunately are not a part of the religious game

I still can't get over the fact there are no religious mechanics in the ancient era while Christianity itself has existed for almost five hundred years before the fall of Rome - and Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism are all centuries older. For most of those faiths you could even make an argument that they should appear in the very beginning of the "classical age" (~500 BC) using the past games nomenclature. Manichaeism, tengriism, gnosticism, and obviously religions of Greeks and Egyptians anf Celts have also been ancient.

There is of course the same ironic reason it has been done so: because in the Western traditional (or popular or poor?) history the medieval and early modern eras are associated with the insitutional religions, whereas antiquity is not. Which, similarly to the dumb treasure fleets mechanic, means that ironically the game whose eras have been framed as "non-eurocentric" make up for much more eurocentric structure of the game than before

No you can't hit that industrial revolution and modern era as a defensively oriented, non-evangelising Incan culture - no you have to replicate the Spanish notions of the missionaries and holy wars and the oversea colonial conquests and then your culture has to die and become Mexico. Gee what a non-eurocentric inclusive and diverse vision of history

 

[Leucarum]

I still can't get over the fact there are no religious mechanics in the ancient era while Christianity itself has existed for almost five hundred years before the fall of Rome - and Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism are all centuries older. For most of those faiths you could even make an argument that they should appear in the very beginning of the "classical age" (~500 BC) using the past games nomenclature. Manichaeism, tengriism, gnosticism, and obviously religions of Greeks and Egyptians anf Celts have also been ancient.

There is of course the same ironic reason it has been done so: because in the Western traditional (or popular or poor?) history the medieval and early modern eras are associated with the insitutional religions, whereas antiquity is not. Which, similarly to the dumb treasure fleets mechanic, means that ironically the game whose eras have been framed as "non-eurocentric" make up for much more eurocentric structure of the game than before

Given how religion is the low point of exploration, I'm kind of glad it's omitted from antiquity

 

[Krikkit1]

I still can't get over the fact there are no religious mechanics in the ancient era while Christianity itself has existed for almost five hundred years before the fall of Rome - and Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism are all centuries older. For most of those faiths you could even make an argument that they should appear in the very beginning of the "classical age" (~500 BC) using the past games nomenclature. Manichaeism, tengriism, gnosticism, and obviously religions of Greeks and Egyptians anf Celts have also been ancient.

There is of course the same ironic reason it has been done so: because in the Western traditional (or popular or poor?) history the medieval and early modern eras are associated with the insitutional religions, whereas antiquity is not. Which, similarly to the dumb treasure fleets mechanic, means that ironically the game whose eras have been framed as "non-eurocentric" make up for much more eurocentric structure of the game than before

No you can't hit that industrial revolution and modern era as a defensively oriented, non-evangelising Incan culture - no you have to replicate the Spanish notions of the missionaries and holy wars and the oversea colonial conquests and then your culture has to die and become Mexico. Gee what a non-eurocentric inclusive and diverse vision of history

As Inca you are likely to Not have to worry about the other pathways... instead get some Relics from Culture, buildup powerful cities for Science Legacies in your mountain Range and switch to Nepal.

 

[GeneralZift]

I don't understand why Civ switching was ever needed. I like the decoupling of the leaders, because in theory you could have infinite replayability, you could add new Civilisations who didn't necessarily have Leaders, and you could add Leaders who aren't very specific to a Civilisation.

But the Civ switching was unnecessary. Not even from a balance perspective - in many strategy games, some factions have an early game lead or a late game lead. And Civ is predominantly single-player anyway.

The game doesn't need you to have bonuses all the time. The game should be interesting, nuanced and deep without relying only on your faction's uniques. The faction's uniques should allow you to approach the game from a different perspective, allow you to play with strange strategies, and allow you to make advantages in specific situations.

IF the issue is a snowballing player then you have maybe 100 different ways to rubber-band them subtly and intuitively. Look at some party games for reference - they routinely have mechanics that benefit the poorest and shaft the strongest. But no one cares because the game is fun.

No one argument has convinced me that it was necessary, but, let's put that aside. If it had had no impact on the game, then I would just shut my mouth. But unfortunately, the rather abrupt switch in flow of gameplay, the rather scripted crises and nonsensical 'evolution' of Civs has put a poor taste in some player's mouths.

Again, and they made the same mistakes as so many games before them. Rushed and released with many missing features. The features that made it are sometimes questionable.

- Map gen is so rushed it looks like the script forcibly erases part of it in a straight line to split it into two continents.
- City states can't ever change allegiance without conquering
- Basic yield balance wasn't finalised - on release, the yields should already have been designed and finished. What do you mean you're still figuring out how much growth food should give?
- Egregious UI issues on release
- Game doesn't explain fresh water
- Game simply disappears your units without warning or explanation. Fyi, all your navy becomes a Cog. But all your army stays. As long as there is enough commanders. Weird and no explanation.
- Missing basic map settings on release

I'm sure there's more, but I couldn't fully sink my teeth into it. Fix it later mentality will kill the game industry. Most of it is fixable, but of the stuff that is not, has most likely lost legacy players until the next release or DLC.

 

[trev1972]

I would pay expansion money for an update to Civ V that made it playable on the latest apple OS so that I could play with one of my friends again.

I would also pay silly money just for them to tweak the net code enough the make Civ V stable in multiplayer

The only reason I don't still play it regularly is because it's multiplayer is about as usable as a trumpet someone's done a wet fart in.

If they throw in some extra mechanics to interact more with the map, too that'd be amazing.

I would come back to Civ V in a heartbeat, and I know a ton of people who feel that way.

I think part of the problem in monetizing a remaster or extension of an old iteration is the fanbase is fragmented?
For example you would love improvements to civ 5, i would pay whatever they asked for, for a remaster of 4 and a remaking of alpha centauri.

 

[Xur]

Asking people that made civ7, to remaster civ4 would be a recipe for disaster. I honestly hope 2K yoinks the IP from Firaxis and gets someone else to develop civ8.

 

[Gorbles]

Weird and no explanation.

Pretty sure the game literally tells you if you need Army Commanders.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Totally agree @Xur I have very little confidence in Firaxis doing anything successfully at the minute. I think with an existing code based to start from they may stand a better chance but it'd inevitably be a buggy mess.

I'd be wary buying anything Firaxis anymore, but if Civ was given to someone else to have a go, especially a dip the toe in extra expansion to a former game, I'd be all over it

 

[uppi]

I don't understand why Civ switching was ever needed. I like the decoupling of the leaders, because in theory you could have infinite replayability, you could add new Civilisations who didn't necessarily have Leaders, and you could add Leaders who aren't very specific to a Civilisation.

But the Civ switching was unnecessary. Not even from a balance perspective - in many strategy games, some factions have an early game lead or a late game lead. And Civ is predominantly single-player anyway.

The game doesn't need you to have bonuses all the time. The game should be interesting, nuanced and deep without relying only on your faction's uniques. The faction's uniques should allow you to approach the game from a different perspective, allow you to play with strange strategies, and allow you to make advantages in specific situations.

IF the issue is a snowballing player then you have maybe 100 different ways to rubber-band them subtly and intuitively. Look at some party games for reference - they routinely have mechanics that benefit the poorest and shaft the strongest. But no one cares because the game is fun.

No one argument has convinced me that it was necessary, but, let's put that aside. If it had had no impact on the game, then I would just shut my mouth. But unfortunately, the rather abrupt switch in flow of gameplay, the rather scripted crises and nonsensical 'evolution' of Civs has put a poor taste in some player's mouths.

Again, and they made the same mistakes as so many games before them. Rushed and released with many missing features. The features that made it are sometimes questionable.

- Map gen is so rushed it looks like the script forcibly erases part of it in a straight line to split it into two continents.
- City states can't ever change allegiance without conquering
- Basic yield balance wasn't finalised - on release, the yields should already have been designed and finished. What do you mean you're still figuring out how much growth food should give?
- Egregious UI issues on release
- Game doesn't explain fresh water
- Game simply disappears your units without warning or explanation. Fyi, all your navy becomes a Cog. But all your army stays. As long as there is enough commanders. Weird and no explanation.
- Missing basic map settings on release

I'm sure there's more, but I couldn't fully sink my teeth into it. Fix it later mentality will kill the game industry. Most of it is fixable, but of the stuff that is not, has most likely lost legacy players until the next release or DLC.

Civ switching was not necessary, but for me, the way it is implemented in Civ7 has made the game better.