Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[bumpyglint]

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.

You literally said, “Those metrics are totally unrelated” and later, “The correlation is generally non-existent. From a statistical point of view, it could be ignored.” That’s simply not true—and it seems quite different from what you're saying now in this latest message. That’s the core of my point.

All game developers care about reviews of their games—for obvious reasons. Reviews have a clear impact on sales, often in a significant way, and sales impact player counts. I think it’s fair to say that almost everyone here has looked at the reception or reviews of a game before deciding whether to buy or play it.

And perhaps even more obviously: most people tend to play games they like, and prefer them over games they don’t like. These are basic, common-sense assumptions that clearly imply a good correlation between player reception and player counts. Saying the two are “totally unrelated” or that the correlation is “generally non-existent and statistically ignorable” is simply a really strange idea.

That said, I think continuing this part of the discussion is probably unproductive. If you truly never look at public reception when buying games (even just random reviews or opinions), and if you play games you dislike just as much as games you enjoy, I really think you’re a rare exception—and I don’t think you're representative of the general player base, which instead has an obvious correlation between their reception of the game and how much they play it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You literally said, “Those metrics are totally unrelated” and later, “The correlation is generally non-existent. From a statistical point of view, it could be ignored.” That’s simply not true—and it seems quite different from what you're saying now in this latest message. That’s the core of my point.

Well, "totally" was an exaggeration, but the rest is exactly what I wrote later, correlation exists, but it's so small that it could be ignored. Just different words for the same meaning.

(in reality, the correlation could actually turn out to be negative if aome other factors overthrow it, but it's another topic I tried to avoid).

All game developers care about reviews of their games—for obvious reasons. Reviews have a clear impact on sales, often in a significant way, and sales impact player counts. I think it’s fair to say that almost everyone here has looked at the reception or reviews of a game before deciding whether to buy or play it.

You keep throwing more and more different things. Sales is another metric, separate from both reviews and simultaneous number of players. Reception is something undefined at all - since we previously agreed that reviews are not equal to reception, we now don't have any measurable metric for reception.

And perhaps even more obviously: most people tend to play games they like, and prefer them over games they don’t like. These are basic, common-sense assumptions that clearly imply a good correlation between player reception and player counts. Saying the two are “totally unrelated” or that the correlation is “generally non-existent and statistically ignorable” is simply a really strange idea.

That's not how statistics works. What you call "common sense" is, actually, oversimplification.

That said, I think continuing this part of the discussion is probably unproductive. If you truly never look at public reception when buying games (even just random reviews or opinions), and if you play games you dislike just as much as games you enjoy, I really think you’re a rare exception—and I don’t think you're representative of the general player base, which instead has an obvious correlation between their reception of the game and how much they play it.

That's not what I'm saying.

 

[GeneralZift]

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

Perhaps you can explain it for me, I'm not trying to pedantic, I just want to know how other people view it.

My opinion is splitting the game into 3 mini-games is ultimately breaking the overall flow and narrative. For the gameplay I don't see that it does anything that couldn't have been in done another (less intrusive) way..

 

[uppi]

Perhaps you can explain it for me, I'm not trying to pedantic, I just want to know how other people view it.

My opinion is splitting the game into 3 mini-games is ultimately breaking the overall flow and narrative. For the gameplay I don't see that it does anything that couldn't have been in done another (less intrusive) way..

I like having unique bonuses and I really like that they are always relevant to the age. With civ switching you can have that without resorting to Stone Age America or Space Romans (and I really do not care for either). I am not sure I clicked the transcend button in Humankind even once.

I like being able to strategize my "civ path" (Greece-Shawnee-Siam) while also having the option to pivot if the game does not fit with the initial strategy.

I consider breaking the flow actually a good thing. With Civ 6, I often thought that it would take too long to start a game on a weekday. With Civ 7, I feel like, sure I have time for an age today. I also like the semi-fresh start and feel that in some ways the age transition does not go far enough. I would prefer if diplomatic relations would reset more. The fact that we were arch-enemies 1000 years ago does not mean that we have to be friends today. And being finished with something and starting towards the next goal always feels nice.

As for breaking the narrative: I don't care too much. I am not playing these kind of game for the story. I am often too busy checking what the narrative event will give me in order to read what it is actually about.

 

[aelf]

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

I doubt you've read any of Firaxis' historian's posts about the Khmer.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

While I understand having the Khmer in antiquity due to Funan, the Khmer apogee was well outside of antiquity and the Khmer state outlasted both the Chola and Majapahit, which succeed the Khmer in-game.

Bagan or the Mon would've made more sense as an Indochinese antiquity civ, if only because Burma really fits what they were going for with switching and eras.

Or have multiple eras of Vietnam, tbh. From the Sisters Trung to the Nguyen expansion to Uncle Ho...

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I doubt you've read any of Firaxis' historian's posts about the Khmer.

Don't really need to in order to know that the Khmer are not an antiquity aged polity. If they're regulated to an age they didn't belong to for "gameplay" reasons, than isn't that a failure in the devoloper's abstraction of the era these people/state actually belonged to?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Bagan or the Mon would've made more sense as an Indochinese antiquity civ, if only because Burma really fits what they were going for with switching and eras.

IIRC they tried playing around with ideas of different antiquity civs in the region and all of them, besides the Khmer, felt more fictional, than historical, trying to come up with uniques for them.
I'm not sure about Bagan because weren't they around the same period as the Khmer? I do agree that Burma would work well as an Exploration Age civ from Khmer.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I doubt you've read any of Firaxis' historian's posts about the Khmer.

Why?

 

[Krikkit1]

Why?

They aren’t as interested in the time a state/culture existed as what it was doing.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

They aren’t as interested in the time a state/culture existed as what it was doing.

I meant why didn't @aelf think I'd read it

 

[aelf]

Don't really need to in order to know that the Khmer are not an antiquity aged polity. If they're regulated to an age they didn't belong to for "gameplay" reasons, than isn't that a failure in the devoloper's abstraction of the era these people/state actually belonged to?

Why?

Because then you'd understand the reasons why a professional made a decision rather than spouting off based on zero information. If you know those reasons, then perhaps your criticism should at least engage with them, since those are what your criticism is effectively addressing, instead of completely omitting their mention.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Because then you'd understand the reasons why a professional made a decision rather than spouting off based on zero information. If you know those reasons, then perhaps your criticism should at least engage with them, since those are what your criticism is effectively addressing, instead of completely omitting their mention.

That "professional" helped released a mediocre game with overwhelmingly negative user reviews. Someone might want to tell that "professional historian" who you think is above criticism that Abbasid becoming the Bugandans isn't very historical either.

 

[Gorbles]

That "professional" helped released a mediocre game with overwhelmingly negative user reviews. Someone might want to tell that "professional historian" who you think is above criticism that Abbasid becoming the Bugandans isn't very historical either.

That same professional contributed to the previous game, which by all accounts was very successful and popular, and remains so. I'm not sure this judgement is as well-formed as you perhaps intended it to be.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

IIRC they tried playing around with ideas of different antiquity civs in the region and all of them, besides the Khmer, felt more fictional, than historical, trying to come up with uniques for them.
I'm not sure about Bagan because weren't they around the same period as the Khmer? I do agree that Burma would work well as an Exploration Age civ from Khmer.

Right, Bagan started later than I thought -- but the Pyu states fit the period, though uniques could be an issue

 

[Captain Lime]

I do not think we need to resort to tar-feathering Andrew Johnson or Ed Beach to explain why Civ 7 is being poorly received. We don't know what their individual contributions were, what input they had that was overruled or changed in compromise, or whatever other discussions took place during development. At this point it's just an institutional failing, and we should focus on the actual flaws in and current status of the game as released than finding a first and last name to blame.

As first current status, I think it's dropping again and on the July 4th weekend too.

 

[Xur]

I do not think we need to resort to tar-feathering Andrew Johnson or Ed Beach to explain why Civ 7 is being poorly received. We don't know what their individual contributions were, what input they had that was overruled or changed in compromise, or whatever other discussions took place during development. At this point it's just an institutional failing, and we should focus on the actual flaws in and current status of the game as released than finding a first and last name to blame.

As first current status, I think it's dropping again and on the July 4th weekend too.

Yea, it's not like the lead designer has any say of what goes into the game. Let's blame the janitor.

 

[trev1972]

Just curious. Who thinks civ 7 will eventually overtake civ 5 for steam numbers?

Who thinks it will overtake 6 as well?

 

[lander]

Just curious. Who thinks civ 7 will eventually overtake civ 5 for steam numbers?

Who thinks it will overtake 6 as well?

Never in a million years. The core of this game it too bad.

It genuinely feels like a cash grab, apart from graphics it seems like everything else is a lazy downgrade.

I understand that some people are enjoying it but its only very few players. The game is honestly way too bad to be popular and of any value to most gamers. Core mechanics are the worst in the series.

 

[Captain Lime]

Yea, it's not like the lead designer has any say of what goes into the game. Let's blame the janitor.

Why is it so wrong to just say the game sucks but we don't need to get out pitchforks?