Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gori the Grey]

I don't disagree. I'm just saying how someone has to do it if they want to have their previous kind of fun within the new game dynamics.

At the end of a Civ game, I often fire up my initial save and kind of say to myself "I knew you when." One of the profound satisfactions for me of a civ game is feeling I've very gradually assembled an in-game-entity (I'll call it) over 300 turns. And I get that satisfaction easily with 1-6 dynamics (3 and 5 are the ones I've actually played) and have held off buying 7 because it sounds like it would be effort on my part to have that same kind of satisfaction.

That said, I probably will prove able to do it. Years ago, I asked myself whether the civs they had in the game being RL civs mattered. Would I still play it if they were fictional countries, but still each had some distinguishing traits (some uniques, in other words)? I think it was at the time of BE, where of course they can't have RL civs. And my answer was that I could. The core appeal of the game is that gradual building over time. (So, as a separate matter, I would find the age setbacks of 7 a nuisance).

 

[Leucarum]

One thing which came up with my usual MP group from Civ6 who wouldn't convert over to 7 is the loss of a feeling of progression. I hadn't realised how much for some people the snowball IS the game. The feeling of gradually getting strong enough to overcome your opposition matters.

Civ7 doesn't get rid of snowballing but it has changed how you do it (you are setting up the stuff which will survive the age transition now). And that does have a very different feeling to how snowballing worked before. Things like not being able to get a tech lead outaide your current era really jarred with some players in ways I didn't expect.

 

[Xur]

I don't disagree. I'm just saying how someone has to do it if they want to have their previous kind of fun within the new game dynamics.

At the end of a Civ game, I often fire up my initial save and kind of say to myself "I knew you when." One of the profound satisfactions for me of a civ game is feeling I've very gradually assembled an in-game-entity (I'll call it) over 300 turns. And I get that satisfaction easily with 1-6 dynamics (3 and 5 are the ones I've actually played) and have held off buying 7 because it sounds like it would be effort on my part to have that same kind of satisfaction.

That said, I probably will prove able to do it. Years ago, I asked myself whether the civs they had in the game being RL civs mattered. Would I still play it if they were fictional countries, but still each had some distinguishing traits (some uniques, in other words)? I think it was at the time of BE, where of course they can't have RL civs. And my answer was that I could. The core appeal of the game is that gradual building over time.

I am the same about that journey and looking back. I loved the map replay at the end of games. I think the most fundamental "problem" is that civ games have always been sandbox games and people could play it 1000 different ways. Civ7 is not a sandbox - it's on rails, smaller and arcadey with 3 "levels".

I still prefer RL civs though. But I could not care less if leaders were completely axed from civ8. There has been way too much focus on leaders and I get why - they are great for DLC/marketing.

 

[Gorbles]

They're also great for immersion, for people that prefer interacting with figureheads. I've liked that all the way back to Civ 1. The leader quotes and banter in SMAC are a highlight of that game, to me.

Provost.

 

[Gori the Grey]

One thing which came up with my usual MP group from Civ6 who wouldn't convert over to 7 is the loss of a feeling of progression. I hadn't realised how much for some people the snowball IS the game. The feeling of gradually getting strong enough to overcome your opposition matters.

Yes, this is very important to me. I play (civ 5) at deity level. You start out massively behind, and there's no way of making that up except gradually. But you can also sense the moment (in successful games) where you've turned the corner. (The demographics screen helps: impossibly behind in tech, just below the average, average, just behind the leader, number 1!)

And yes on the other point: leaders won't go away. We tend to imagine agency most easily when we can associate it with a human being, and to the extent that the other civs are the agents against whom you are playing, they need human figureheads.

The designers of 7 made the mistake, though, I think, of thinking that because people on forums like these use the leader name to refer to the other civs, that means that the leaders are most important for game-identification. A lot of people's game-identification (mine, e.g.) is with the civ, and they just use leaders' names as a shorthand.

 

[trev1972]

I am the same about that journey and looking back. I loved the map replay at the end of games. I think the most fundamental "problem" is that civ games have always been sandbox games and people could play it 1000 different ways. Civ7 is not a sandbox - it's on rails, smaller and arcadey with 3 "levels".

I still prefer RL civs though. But I could not care less if leaders were completely axed from civ8. There has been way too much focus on leaders and I get why - they are great for DLC/marketing.

I loved playing the map back and watching my empire grow as well, i agree that civ games were traditionally sandbox games with an emphasis on being able to play your own way. My only disagreement is that i think they started moving away from this before 7.

 

[Stoic]

In the last 24 hours, an average of 8,000 players played in Civ VII, while 40,000 played in Civ VI... incredible.

 

[Leucarum]

Yes, this is very important to me. I play (civ 5) at deity level. You start out massively behind, and there's no way of making that up except gradually. But you can also sense the moment (in successful games) where you've turned the corner. (The demographics screen helps: impossibly behind in tech, just below the average, average, just behind the leader, number 1!)

And yes on the other point: leaders won't go away. We tend to imagine agency most easily when we can associate it with a human being, and to the extent that the other civs are the agents against whom you are playing, they need human figureheads.

The designers of 7 made the mistake, though, I think, of thinking that because people on forums like these use the leader name to refer to the other civs, that means that the leaders are most important for game-identification. A lot of people's game-identification (mine, e.g.) is with the civ, and they just use leaders' names as a shorthand.

I didn't find that Civ7's approach to snowballing and progression bothered me as much. But it is more repetitive than the snowballs of previous Civs since you're almost always doing the same thing despite having more varied and deep civs.

 

[Kwami]

In the last 24 hours, an average of 8,000 players played in Civ VII, while 40,000 played in Civ VI... incredible.

Is it really that incredible when you consider that VI has had nine years to build a player base, has had numerous large sales, and now includes all of the DLC bundled in? I don't think so.

 

[Sagax]

Is it really that incredible when you consider that VI has had nine years to build a player base, has had numerous large sales, and now includes all of the DLC bundled in? I don't think so.

Maybe not as dramatic as doomposting would suggest. But these trends do send an uncomfortable signal of "don't bother with a new Civ game until it reaches deep discounts or the end of its content cycle". Which can become a real worry if your future content development depends on good base game sales to begin with.

But it's just me being a rando on the internet - I don't know how 2k and FXS budget their roadmaps. For myself, I can only say that if Civ 7's state of release (both content-wise and quality-wise) is the norm we can expect for future Civ releases, then unfortunately that's not something I will be participating in moving forward. I'll just sit it out until the Anthology edition or similar.

 

[m_mus]

No harm taken of course, it's always good to debate these things!

This bit of your response I thought was interesting and worth drawing out though. Framing it as a profound identity crisis is a little off for me.

[...]

Maybe it's just because of some nationalistic impulse as a typical Englishman I want to enslave and destroy the french for eternity and this game limits that to one era, but I say that's my prorogative as a gamer that Firaxis have taken from me.

Thank you for making me laugh, while at the same time engaging in good faith with my argument, I want to respond in kindred spirit:

Maybe it's just because of some diversity-oriented impulse of someone who fostered his interest in history during the times, when the liberal / leftwing-mindset was still able to sustain its cultural hegemony, that I want Civ to mirror the historical "fact", that none of the civilizations people love(d) to play did exist from 4000 BC to 2000+ AD continuously and unchanged in their identity. The "typical Englishman" and their animosity toward the French is a very specific historical product nurtured by the 100-years-war (and god knows what, I am German, forgive my ignorance) that could not have arisen before the advent of nationalism. The English differed to a not so small degree from their Anglo-Saxon ancestors, who in turn differed profoundly in from the Britons whom they pushed into Wales and Cornwall.
I do perceive history to operate way more discontinuous than depicted in prior iterations of Civilization and therefore I actually love the credo of "history is built in layers". I find it more immersive, because I find it historically more plausible.

[Yet alas, I know there is a 'vibeshift' happening right now. And sometimes I wonder, whether Civ7's civ-switching mechanism and their honorable endeavour to portray under-representated civilizations in Civ7 (e.g.: Mississippi) - before including obvious omissions such as the Ottomans, Vikings, or Byzantium etc. - were decided for, when the mentioned cultural hegemony of associated ideas about history (=discontinuous) and identity (=fluid) were at its peak, but released when the vibeshift already began to kick in full force.]

I am going to reply to this

Its not thaty we dont see it, it adds nothing and removes a lot, thats the problem. We could already start a new game if we wanted to play with a different Civilization, it was just a few clicks away. But the new system removes the ability to build a Civilization to stand the Test of Time, which is why i played Civ for over 3 decades

So, for the add of NOTHING, you remove the core premise of your franchise

I understand some might like it, some people liked Beyond Earth too as well as Halo Infinite etc, but the issue is this system is not being liked by way too many people, and doubling down on it would be a huge mistake

I want to reply to this as well and argue that it does exactly the opposite. It removes something, true, but it adds A LOT in terms of strategic diversity.

What does it remove? It removes the problem, that you could easily miss the at times small timespan to truly play out your unique units or infrastructure, since it makes your civilizational abilities relevant in every age. It also removes the problem, that you can change your at times measly fate / handicap (of an adverse combination of starting location & civilization) without pushing the restart button. This is much more relevant for MP, where quitting is much less tolerated than in SP, and I admit, that I am foremost playing MP with some buddies of mine. It is much, much easier to motivate those to stay in an ongoing game, which may look bleak to them now, when they know (some part of) the cards are being shuffled again once the new age starts. I must admit, that I have under-estimated badly how much some of you like to snowball. But for heaven's sake, pls stop complaining in turn about an AI that cannot keep up with you ... Could the AI be better? Sure, but as is, the AI needs those anti-snowballing mechanics and your human counterparts do as well in case of playing MP.

What does it add? Strategic diversity ... spades of it.
I can react in a unique and meanigful manner to changing circumstances which in previous interations of the franchise would easily have prohibited me from truly playing out my civilization's strengths. e.g.: I am playing Mali in Civ6 and my opponent does settle the desert I so desperatedly crave, and I lack the means to take them by force. In Civ6 for many this would be a valid reason to restart the game. In Civ7 I may have to bite myself through one hard age, but I could forward to the next age, which will allow for the possibility of freeing myself from the fate of falling behind by starting anew: I would select a civilization which will hopefully allow me to catch up as its abilities may suit much better the given terrain/environment of other players.
I can actively hunt for synergies (such as Mississippis weak, but easily placable Potkop + culture Xerxes + chalcedonian seal + Shawnee for that sweet Serpent Mound in explorationage) and theorycraft in a much greater scope than any prior civ-game would have allowed. In that sense I'd say it also adds mechanically to the game.

To conclude, I'd like to combine those two often-cited credos: You become much more adaptable to build an empire to stand the test of time ... because history is built in layers and Civ7 shoud reflect that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Piece of random data for today. After first month of initial spike in simultaneous players, Civ6 dropped below Civ5 and was there until first expansion coming in a year and a half. After a month since this expansion, Civ6 felt below Civ5 again, until second expansion spike, 2 years after Civ6 release, finally allowed it to get stable lead over Civ5.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Is it really that incredible when you consider that VI has had nine years to build a player base, has had numerous large sales, and now includes all of the DLC bundled in? I don't think so.

come on man this is just sad attempt at justifying failure…. Civ 6 launch peak was nearly double that of VII and even at its lowest (it fell below V’s player counts for a while) its average player counts never regularly fell below 10k

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Piece of random data for today. After first month of initial spike in simultaneous players, Civ6 dropped below Civ5 and was there until first expansion coming in a year and a half. After a month since this expansion, Civ6 felt below Civ5 again, until second expansion spike, 2 years after Civ6 release, finally allowed it to get stable lead over Civ5.
View attachment 739295

And yet VI never fell below IV’s in players , never reached the absolute lows in player count that VII has managed and didn’t release to overwhelmingly negative user reviews. Making this comparison quite obviously flawed

 

[Gori the Grey]

There are certain people who don't want to play Harriet Tubman of the Greeks who become Bugandans.

There are certain people who don't want to play Harriet Tubman, full stop.

 

[itix]

I find this a strange argument. Sure, the Italian chef can make tamales. But I think most customers in the restaurant are there for the pizza.

Civ is a historical themed strategy game. Unique cultures are a well established part of the flavour. If people select Rome, they want to be playing as a civ with legions and aqueducts. If they pick Japan, they want to see samurai.

Even with as many unique as we have in Civ 7, 90% of what you’re building is available to everyone. You can still build ballistae as the Mayans or send Japan into space.

That is only because nations adapted to circumstances and available resources. Like American natives, who didn't know about firearms or have horses (as they were extinct), had to fight against Europeans using bows and melee weapons and move on foot. But as we all know, they had no problem adapting to firearms and horses where available.

Or, if I were playing historical Rome, shouldn't I have a strong navy? They were competing for control of the Mediterranean. Initially, they were a land based power but had to adapt to their enemies and invest in a navy. The Roman legion was effective, but very often it was only because their enemies were not (lacking discipline, tactics, training). Hannibal annihilated Roman armies and devastated Italy for 15 years. In the end, Roman legions were as good as their weakest link. Unfortunate to Hannibal, he didnt receive proper backing from Carthage and could not sack Rome and eventually his army was annihilated.

Likewise, if we continue pursuing this historical theme, the game should prevent Napoleon from having a domination win. Instead, his career should end in Waterloo

I mean, I would be happy without stupid UU and special boni. There could be deeper research paths if you wish to invest heavily into the navy, land armies, agriculture etc. but in a manner that you cant unlock them all, not at least easily.

 

[itix]

I think seeing your civilisation in Exploration as not being the same as the one you've built in Antiquity is part of the problem. Some folks can visualise this progression. You keep your buildings, you can now even keep all your units, you keep your Wonders, your building and district choices . . . the only things that really change are the diplomacy banner text, and the city name pool founded from the new Age onwards. And for some people, this is critically important.

This makes me wonder... would it work if players could keep their original empire name? Start playing as Rome and keep it so to the end.

 

[McSpank01]

I find this a strange argument. Sure, the Italian chef can make tamales. But I think most customers in the restaurant are there for the pizza.

Civ is a historical themed strategy game. Unique cultures are a well established part of the flavour. If people select Rome, they want to be playing as a civ with legions and aqueducts. If they pick Japan, they want to see samurai.

Even with as many unique as we have in Civ 7, 90% of what you’re building is available to everyone. You can still build ballistae as the Mayans or send Japan into space.

I think an area that Civ 6 was really good at, was that most civs would really do well for multiple victory types, and mostly their bonuses sort of carried through for the entire game. Yes their UUs and UBs would be specific to one period, but you still got a lot of flavour as to the form your civ had throughout the whole game.

 

[Wrenched]

I think 7 was to be expected. For me, from 4 onwards the game has been moving in this direction. I think less and less effort has been made from 4 onwards to hide the fact that you are playing a board game, not leading an empire. I think the AI has gotten worse since 4, not better. I think less effort has been made to add personality to the game and to add personality to your opponents. Effort seems to have been focussed on initial prettiness and accessibility.

I think you nailed one of the major problems 100%.

The AI competence has fallen off of a cliff since 4. Civilization 5 with all DLC and a surgical application of mods can still be decent (with a large emphasis on the mods' contributions).

I was playing a lot of Civilization 6 leading up to the release of 7 and I was often left astonished at how I could roll over the AI. I would have a massive military force wiping out one opponent after another and every remaining AI opponent just sat on their thumbs with a scattering of units, but would keep calling me up on the ol' Civ-o-phone to say mean things about my war mongering and denouncing me but not actually doing anything mechanically in the game to pose a challenge. It was pretty sad. There are other aspects that save 6 such as the districts, complex city-building, engineering feats and really shined when you approached 6 like a euro board game that was 'multiplayer solo' as the phrase goes.

When 7 released and a lot of the online discussion was how so many players were steamrolling Deity nearly out of the gate I was deflated. AI just doesn't seem a design priority. The art assets are incredible and much of the presentation (save for the UI missteps) is top notch. Either the team doesn't have the time and budget allocation to tackle proper AI development or the core design is constructed in such a way that doesn't factor in how AI can be coded to play it properly. I also don't want to pick on the dev team that works on the AI coding as I suspect they are extremely talented and far smarter than myself. They are working within the confines of the budget, overall priorities, mandates from Take-Two, and design document. In some ways I get de-prioritizing AI from a market perspective...that is not an area that is pronounced enough to market a game or sell DLC.

~~~
In fairness to Firaxis, they swung for the fences and presented a bold redesign of Civ with 7. It's just one that hasn't connected with the wider fanbase. I hope Civ 7's development ends in a great place. Due to the design choices there will be some difficult needles to thread to keep all groups happy. Things like Ages appear mutually exclusive to the sandbox style players. There are a lot of similar tensions throughout the design implementation.

 

[McSpank01]

I think you nailed one of the major problems 100%.

The AI competence has fallen off of a cliff since 4. Civilization 5 with all DLC and a surgical application of mods can still be decent (with a large emphasis on the mods' contributions).

I was playing a lot of Civilization 6 leading up to the release of 7 and I was often left astonished at how I could roll over the AI. I would have a massive military force wiping out one opponent after another and every remaining AI opponent just sat on their thumbs with a scattering of units, but would keep calling me up on the ol' Civ-o-phone to say mean things about my war mongering and denouncing me but not actually doing anything mechanically in the game to pose a challenge. It was pretty sad. There are other aspects that save 6 such as the districts, complex city-building, engineering feats and really shined when you approached 6 like a euro board game that was 'multiplayer solo' as the phrase goes.

When 7 released and a lot of the online discussion was how so many players were steamrolling Deity nearly out of the gate I was deflated. AI just doesn't seem a design priority. The art assets are incredible and much of the presentation (save for the UI missteps) is top notch. Either the team doesn't have the time and budget allocation to tackle proper AI development or the core design is constructed in such a way that doesn't factor in how AI can be coded to play it properly. I also don't want to pick on the dev team that works on the AI coding as I suspect they are extremely talented and far smarter than myself. They are working within the confines of the budget, overall priorities, mandates from Take-Two, and design document. In some ways I get de-prioritizing AI from a market perspective...that is not an area that is pronounced enough to market a game or sell DLC.

~~~
In fairness to Firaxis, they swung for the fences and presented a bold redesign of Civ with 7. It's just one that hasn't connected with the wider fanbase. I hope Civ 7's development ends in a great place. Due to the design choices there will be some difficult needles to thread to keep all groups happy. Things like Ages appear mutually exclusive to the sandbox style players. There are a lot of similar tensions throughout the design implementation.

My interpretation of many of the changes that Firaxis made were in some ways methods of trying to improve the AI, by cutting out a lot of the things the AI had to worry about. By simplifying the mechanics it allows the AI to assess the board and play more optimally. I'm pretty sure they even said that in one of the videos. I have never really been able to tell how true that is from gameplay however. I have never worried too much about AI in civ games.