Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[stealth_nsk]

I'm curious about your data on this? Over what period of time did you analyze the reviews to assess that civ-switching is what people are complaining about?

We had sentiment analysis this spring and civ switching wasn't even mentioned in the top reasons for negativity. This could be changed by now, though, as UI (the top complain) is much more polished now.

I have no idea how people are still trying to deny that civ switching and era resets have failed. Civ7 is a unique failure in the history of the mainstream Civ series

No. Civ5 had as rough start as Civ7 (and not due to 1UpT, btw.), we just didn't have Steam reviews back then. Just a reminder - Civ5 launch was so bad, that it caused firing the lead designer from Firaxis.

It's a simple receipt for bad start - you do revolutionary changes, but due to amount of work they require, you don't have enough time to properly adjust all game mechanics. So the game is released in awful condition and you get tons of negativity.

 

[reyaik]

I mean, saying that CIV7 will bankrupt Firaxis is far-fetched. The same didn't even happen to Amplitude with their Humankind 'magnus opus'.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

With the development costs of Civ VII, they would need to sell between 4-6mil copies to avoid running a loss (range dependent on mix of standard Vs founders edition sales).

They sold about 1.8mil on release supposedly, and in the 6 months since, maybe another 0.5mil but this is much harder to quantify.

They will need to turn around word of mouth on the game to break even is my takeaway from that, and it's probably not going to be nearly as profitable a venture as Civ V or Civ VI

 

[stealth_nsk]

With the development costs of Civ VII, they would need to sell between 4-6mil copies to avoid running a loss (range dependent on mix of standard Vs founders edition sales).

It depends a lot on the expansions, DLCs and discounts. We need average paycheck per person to calculate this and if we'll have 2 expansions for $40 each, by the end of the game cycle we'll have all range from $10 (bought base game only on some large sale some years after release) to about $300 (bought Founders Edition, all expansions and DLCs on release).

They sold about 1.8mil on release supposedly, and in the 6 months since, maybe another 0.5mil but this is much harder to quantify.

I think it's about 2-2.5M by now based on multiple sources we've discussed here. Founders Edition was originally about 30-40% of preorders (based on Steam achievements on FE's personas before they started being sold separately), but DLC seem to be selling in noticeable amount as well due to Civ7 returning to top100 after first part of RtR being sold.

They will need to turn around word of mouth on the game to break even is my takeaway from that, and it's probably not going to be nearly as profitable a venture as Civ V or Civ VI

It's really hard to tell. Markets changed and continue changing. In any case, while it's totally possible Civ7 will not pay for itself, I don't see any dramatic "death" - just regular loss on not so successful game.

 

[UWHabs]

It's not so much that it would "bankrupt" Firaxis (or 2k), but moreso if the franchise is not making money off their headline title, are they willing to take the risk on the next title that it will turn around. They might, but companies won't necessarily keep funding something which is losing money forever, even if they had cash in the bank from before.

 

[Krajzen]

i think it is fair to say that the criticism of civ switching is more unpopular as a concept while the implementation of eras is more unpopular.

When I first heard about the civ switching I was terrified, when I first switch about the radically different eras I was excited. The idea of historical eras being strongly different in mechanical gameplay and flavour, with a transition being a great shakeup, has fantastic potential. Sadly the terror was proven right but not the excitement.

You know what's the most depressing symptom of the game's state to me? Look at the discourse here, on civ reddit or on youtube. Or rather: look at the lack of said discourse. The vast majority of discussion on this forum is meta discussion about its survival and redemption. On civ reddit the majority of posts have barely few hundred upvotes and are similarly themed around meta criticism and apologetics. The civ reveals gather a pathetic amount of attention compared with the past games.

In fact, even the defenders of the games don't post much about their recent discoveries, fun, strategies or screenshots. I have a very good memory of a flourishing, lively forum discussions over the entirety of civ5 and civ6 lifecycle. Likewise, civ reddit has been super active during those game's lives, posting fun things from the game with thousands of upvotes. Even during the "drought" periods far from new content.

On the other hand, a shocking sight for me has been the great amount of harsh criticism and critical discussions the game has spawned on civ/reddit. I have disliked that place for years viewing it as very uncritical pale shadow of forum capable only of posting meme screenshots. Video game subreddits for some reason are more often too apologetic rather than too critical.
I retract my negative impressions of subreddit people, they have a strong positive bias but not rose tinted glasses. But for me the fact that even civ/reddit has little enthusiasm for the game is yet another sign of the crisis.

I don't thing the game shall be truly saved without the radical shakeup of a new direction by the devs, rethinking the fundamentals, reworking age system, partially swallowing the pride and admitting to the failure by enabling to old-style "perennial civs" mode, and going all the way to the revision of the DLC monetary policy and perhaps releasing some sort of "director's cut" for free. Perhaps this would even bring some changes in terms of leadership...

 

[Crashdummy]

No. Civ5 had as rough start as Civ7 (and not due to 1UpT, btw.), we just didn't have Steam reviews back then. Just a reminder - Civ5 launch was so bad, that it caused firing the lead designer from Firaxis.

Civ 5 start wasnt as bad as Civ 7, not even close

This is more like Beyond Earth launch than Civ 5

 

[fantsu]

Civ 5 start wasnt as bad as Civ 7, not even close

This is more like Beyond Earth launch than Civ 5

Civ V was way worse at release. Took almost six months (for me at least) to be able to even start up the game. Over a year before multiplayer worked out at all.
Its still the worst of the series by a mile. Not just technical problems and low quality graphics and assets, but they never fixed the stupid AI aimed for young console players dumbed down from Civ:Rev.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You know what's the most depressing symptom of the game's state to me? Look at the discourse here, on civ reddit or on youtube. Or rather: look at the lack of said discourse. The vast majority of discussion on this forum is meta discussion about its survival and redemption. On civ reddit the majority of posts have barely few hundred upvotes and are similarly themed around meta criticism and apologetics. The civ reveals gather a pathetic amount of attention compared with the past games.

Well, the internet changed. Hype/hate trains are much quicker to start now. Actually we have a lot of constructive discussions both here and on Reddit, they are just overshadowed by unconstructive ones.

Also, Reddit has more flat structure, so, for example, here we have a separate threads for funny screenshots or for commercial success speculations. In Reddit each screenshot is a separate post, so such posts overcome more constructive discussions.

 

[McSpank01]

You know what's the most depressing symptom of the game's state to me? Look at the discourse here, on civ reddit or on youtube. Or rather: look at the lack of said discourse. The vast majority of discussion on this forum is meta discussion about its survival and redemption. On civ reddit the majority of posts have barely few hundred upvotes and are similarly themed around meta criticism and apologetics. The civ reveals gather a pathetic amount of attention compared with the past games.

I think this is a key point, and seems to be a major difference in how the game 'feels' when I think about it. I have been coming to this forum since Civ 4, and would just lurk to absorb all the amazing info and strategies that players were sharing. The whole point about these games was there was a level of complexity, but also freedom in how you could play, and there were absolutely strategies that could be attempted to really push the needle on success.

I don't see anything like that in Civ 7. It doesn't really feel like the game is complex enough to even discuss in terms of strategy. There is no 'optimal build order' because are basically railroaded into just spamming scouts for the most part. There are so few meaningful decisions to be made when going through your play through that I'm not surprised that there is hardly any discussion on strategy. There barely is any real strategy involved in the game. Choices are simplistic and pretty much binary for the most part.

Maybe if I watched more multiplayer streams I'd get a sense of players genuinely trying stuff, but the game is so stripped back that there doesn't seem to be anything there to analyse

 

[aieeegrunt]

When I first heard about the civ switching I was terrified, when I first switch about the radically different eras I was excited. The idea of historical eras being strongly different in mechanical gameplay and flavour, with a transition being a great shakeup, has fantastic potential. Sadly the terror was proven right but not the excitement.

You know what's the most depressing symptom of the game's state to me? Look at the discourse here, on civ reddit or on youtube. Or rather: look at the lack of said discourse. The vast majority of discussion on this forum is meta discussion about its survival and redemption. On civ reddit the majority of posts have barely few hundred upvotes and are similarly themed around meta criticism and apologetics. The civ reveals gather a pathetic amount of attention compared with the past games.

In fact, even the defenders of the games don't post much about their recent discoveries, fun, strategies or screenshots. I have a very good memory of a flourishing, lively forum discussions over the entirety of civ5 and civ6 lifecycle. Likewise, civ reddit has been super active during those game's lives, posting fun things from the game with thousands of upvotes. Even during the "drought" periods far from new content.

On the other hand, a shocking sight for me has been the great amount of harsh criticism and critical discussions the game has spawned on civ/reddit. I have disliked that place for years viewing it as very uncritical pale shadow of forum capable only of posting meme screenshots. Video game subreddits for some reason are more often too apologetic rather than too critical.
I retract my negative impressions of subreddit people, they have a strong positive bias but not rose tinted glasses. But for me the fact that even civ/reddit has little enthusiasm for the game is yet another sign of the crisis.

I don't thing the game shall be truly saved without the radical shakeup of a new direction by the devs, rethinking the fundamentals, reworking age system, partially swallowing the pride and admitting to the failure by enabling to old-style "perennial civs" mode, and going all the way to the revision of the DLC monetary policy and perhaps releasing some sort of "director's cut" for free. Perhaps this would even bring some changes in terms of leadership...

This is yet another indicator to go along with all the rest pointing to a failure abandoned by the majority of it’s fans. How many more do we need?

Trying to say Civ5 was just as bad is missing, or refusing to accept the point. Civ5’s problems were technical; once the game was working, it was still a Civ game. Which is why it’s crushing 7 in having people actually play it.

Some sort of “classic mode” with all civs available from the start and no era reset may or may not reverse it; this would certainly make one of it’s most consistent ctitics (me) want to try it.

Or maybe I should just see if some of the Civ7 mechanics (cities/towns, no builders) get modded into 6.

 

[Kwami]

In fact, even the defenders of the games don't post much about their recent discoveries, fun, strategies or screenshots.

Honestly?

I don't post here much because you all have made this such a negative place with all of the doom posts. It's not worth making a new thread to talk about something fun when I know that it's going to be invaded by the same dozen or so accounts that post the same complaints in nearly every thread.

 

[Crashdummy]

Honestly?

I don't post here much because you all have made this such a negative place with all of the doom posts. It's not worth making a new thread to talk about something fun when I know that it's going to be invaded by the same dozen or so accounts that post the same complaints in nearly every thread.

Discussions threads that are not about system specific changes dont get this kind of posts. Go to all the civ discussions or any of those thread and you will not see people talking about age transitions and civ switrching

So no, i dont see complaints in every thread, i see complaints in the threads made for those stuff

What i do see is that those other threads, that get no complaints, also get very few replies (and i think its because there arebnt manty people playing), but they dont get negativity in them

 

[sonicmyst]

Honestly?

I don't post here much because you all have made this such a negative place with all of the doom posts. It's not worth making a new thread to talk about something fun when I know that it's going to be invaded by the same dozen or so accounts that post the same complaints in nearly every thread.

I agree here. I have seen repeated posts of doom and gloom, as if people as basking on this game's failure. Now I see why potato stopped for a while because the repeated toxicity is tiring. Maybe I just have to play instead of reading the forums. (Got 1000 hours and more now for Civ VII)

 

[Gori the Grey]

One measure, though, is that the "Strategy and Tips" sub-forum, where doom-posters don't doom-post, has at present two pages of threads. Civ VI had two pages of threads within a week of release.

I don't think it's the doom-posters who are the primary cause for the lack of discussion of Civ 7.

 

[Core Imposter]

Strategy posts (messages):

Civ 3: 112.5K
Civ 4: 531.8K
Civ 5 147.8K
Civ BE: 4.2K
Civ 6: 22.1K
Civ 7: 0.77K

There it is. Only 772 posts. There simply isn't that much to talk about strategy wise. And you can see why folks like me bemoan the evolution of Civ away from strategy to whatever it is now.

And I am not even talking about views. There is a Civ7 strategy thread with 7K views. But compare that to the Civ 4 Realism Invictus mod thread. It is listed with three million views.

Maybe someday Firaxis will try to make a strategy game again.

 

[Maiq]

I agree here. I have seen repeated posts of doom and gloom, as if people as basking on this game's failure. Now I see why potato stopped for a while because the repeated toxicity is tiring. Maybe I just have to play instead of reading the forums. (Got 1000 hours and more now for Civ VII)

That guy also invited in all that toxicity and "surprised pikachu faced" when he ran into people who could spit out more than a "your mom" joke.

 

[Xur]

I agree here. I have seen repeated posts of doom and gloom, as if people as basking on this game's failure. Now I see why potato stopped for a while because the repeated toxicity is tiring. Maybe I just have to play instead of reading the forums. (Got 1000 hours and more now for Civ VII)

I dont think it's fair to equate criticism with toxicity. Just because you like the game does not mean others' negative opinions are invalid. The majority of people that bought the game dont seem to like it. I've seen plenty of "positive" reviews also wishing the civ switch and era changes gone.

You could also add the giant vacuum of people that did NOT buy the game and thereby absent in the reviews as a source of discontent with the game. I didn't buy it, but I can promise you if I had pre-ordered I would also have left a negative review. The game is objectively poorly received by the majority and engaging with the reasons behind that is the only way forward for Firaxis. They should be happy that people even bother to care anymore. Sticking our heads in the sand and dismissing criticism as toxicity is counterproductive - and paradoxically toxic in itself.

 

[kotpeter]

Strategy posts (messages):

Civ 3: 112.5K
Civ 4: 531.8K
Civ 5 147.8K
Civ BE: 4.2K
Civ 6: 22.1K
Civ 7: 0.77K

There it is. Only 772 posts.

I assume this is lifetime statistics? If so, could you please divide each number by the number of months since each game's release to get numbers we could reasonably compare?

 

[Kev1916]

I assume this is lifetime statistics? If so, could you please divide each number by the number of months since each game's release to get numbers we could reasonably compare?

Best Comparison ?

Civ BE: 4.2K
Civ 7: 0.77K