Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Xandinho]

I disagree with that. Civ switching appears to be preventing a sizable portion of the potential playerbase from buying or playing Civ7. And even if any alternatives aren't universally appealing, you could hardly describe civ switching as appealing on the whole even if a minority likes it. In particular I can't see expansions turning out to be a good value proposition if Civ Switching remains... If they want long term value, selling DLC only usable for 1/3 of the game won't generate it at the price they're aiming for.

They made a huge mistake in thinking that players are more attached to leaders than to civilizations. In previous games, when we chose to play as France, it didn’t matter as much who was leading — what mattered was the feeling of actually playing as France.

What’s even more difficult now is figuring out who my neighbors actually are, because at one moment it’s Rome, then suddenly it’s Spain, and the whole strange arrangement is being led by, say, Napoleon. I always get confused, thinking I’m playing against France because Napoleon is the leader, only to find out it’s Rome. Wait… now it’s Spain.

 

[Crashdummy]

A sale is always a good thing for would-be consumers and 30% off is nothing to sneeze at.

A 30% sale and relaunching the Founder pack under a different name is an aggresive move. Lets see in the next few weeks if the numbers go up or not

I dont think they will

 

[Wrenched]

As someone that has engaged in this hobby for many many decades I have found it healthy to be skeptical of CEOs or at least take their communication with a grain of salt. Typically they are speaking to their actual customers of shareholders and investors; and their interests frequently don't align with Joe average hobbyist. YMMV.

That said, I think Zelnick's statement is likely accurate on both counts. (1) Civilization VII has had a slow start. (2) Civilization VII will likely meet internal targets of revenue/profitability over its lifetime. A little bit of negative news paired with a spoonful of sugar. The Civilization brand is really strong and has a lot of name recognition. That will help VII along for now and larger expansions that offer sizeable gameplay changes may help it further in the same way larger expansions helped or fleshed out V and VI. Time will tell.

 

[Xur]

As someone that has engaged in this hobby for many many decades I have found it healthy to be skeptical of CEOs or at least take their communication with a grain of salt. Typically they are speaking to their actual customers of shareholders and investors; and their interests frequently don't align with Joe average hobbyist. YMMV.

That said, I think Zelnick's statement is likely accurate on both counts. (1) Civilization VII has had a slow start. (2) Civilization VII will likely meet internal targets of revenue/profitability over its lifetime. A little bit of negative news paired with a spoonful of sugar. The Civilization brand is really strong and has a lot of name recognition. That will help VII along for now and larger expansions that offer sizeable gameplay changes may help it further in the same way larger expansions helped or fleshed out V and VI. Time will tell.

Maybe it makes sense if you ignore the product and focus on the name of the franchise. Fact is that civ7 is to its franchise, what windows 8 was to the windows franchise - overdesigned slop that nobody wants and a giant divergence from the standard product.

 

[itix]

Doubtful - while they could add more civs, the game has been pretty thoroughly fleshed out over the last 9 years, not much they could do to generate as much revenue as people buying civ VII. (1 copy of Civ VII with all content rn is $130). You'd have to have 3 people buy CIV VI or 4 people buy a DLC/expansion at $30-35 just to be close to getting the same revenue.

It is easier to find 4 people to buy CIV VI DLC than one person to buy the complete Civ VII pack at $130...

 

[Askia Muhammad]

It is easier to find 4 people to buy CIV VI DLC than one person to buy the complete Civ VII pack at $130...

I’d actually welcome more Civ 6 DLC with open arms - particularly if it works on the AI in the background.

Or even a remaster of V or IV would be very welcome

 

[canadamufc]

I disagree with that. Civ switching appears to be preventing a sizable portion of the potential playerbase from buying or playing Civ7. And even if any alternatives aren't universally appealing, you could hardly describe civ switching as appealing on the whole even if a minority likes it. In particular I can't see expansions turning out to be a good value proposition if Civ Switching remains... If they want long term value, selling DLC only usable for 1/3 of the game won't generate it at the price they're aiming for.

And also the price it’s at is just laughable really. $40CAD for 4 civs and 2 leaders is not good value. Brave New World, Gods and Kings, Rise and Fall, and Gathering Storm all had around 9 leaders/civs and so many new game mechanics for around $40-50CAD.

Simply put the price on the DLC’s is insane.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

And also the price it’s at is just laughable really. $40CAD for 4 civs and 2 leaders is not good value. Brave New World, Gods and Kings, Rise and Fall, and Gathering Storm all had around 9 leaders/civs and so many new game mechanics for around $40-50CAD.

Simply put the price on the DLC’s is insane.

I’m scared - first expansion is probably $80 CAD

6 civs 6 leaders and Cold War age

 

[Kwami]

And also the price it’s at is just laughable really. $40CAD for 4 civs and 2 leaders is not good value. Brave New World, Gods and Kings, Rise and Fall, and Gathering Storm all had around 9 leaders/civs and so many new game mechanics for around $40-50CAD.

Simply put the price on the DLC’s is insane.

Expansions have always been priced better than standalone civilizations, though. The individual civilization DLCs for this game have the same price as they did for the last game.

 

[canadamufc]

NFP had way more leaders, civilizations, and overall content for just an extra $13CAD ($10USD). Even if you combine Crossroads and Right To Rule, which is $80CAD (lol), NFP still has more content. That is $53.50CAD vs $80CAD.

And I expect a $65-70CAD first expansion, and will be shocked if it's any lower. That is the trend of this game.

 

[reyaik]

In the end everyone here has a point: the reviews are almost evenly distributed between positive and negative. The game simply polarises the fan base and arguably has kept away a large part of the core fan base still. Take Two should have a good understanding of what the penetration is of players that bought CIV5 and CIV6. In their lifetime value analysis, they surely would assume that this goes up to a high number (80-90%). That could be a wrong assumption. Also, they look at revenues in dollar terms, and even if spread across lower volumes, the price point is arguably higher than CIV5 and CIV6 in nominal dollar terms by some margin. Hence, they will work on the assumption that they are going to come out with even more high-priced DLCs of questionable value for large parts of the typical consumer base. Based on such thinking and the CEO statement, I would say we have two years of active CIV7 development more or less underwritten by Take Two. But if you don't have better reviews and more volumes coming through, active development and game improvement is going to end somewhat prematurely.

 

[trev1972]

Opinions will vary of course, personally i have seen enough to convince me that the game is doing poorly on PC.
What i don't know is how well the game is doing on other platforms, is it possible other platforms are outperforming PC (in terms of units sold and revenue)?

If so, we may see a further shift away from PC?

 

[Xur]

In the end everyone here has a point: the reviews are almost evenly distributed between positive and negative. The game simply polarises the fan base and arguably has kept away a large part of the core fan base still. Take Two should have a good understanding of what the penetration is of players that bought CIV5 and CIV6. In their lifetime value analysis, they surely would assume that this goes up to a high number (80-90%). That could be a wrong assumption. Also, they look at revenues in dollar terms, and even if spread across lower volumes, the price point is arguably higher than CIV5 and CIV6 in nominal dollar terms by some margin. Hence, they will work on the assumption that they are going to come out with even more high-priced DLCs of questionable value for large parts of the typical consumer base. Based on such thinking and the CEO statement, I would say we have two years of active CIV7 development more or less underwritten by Take Two. But if you don't have better reviews and more volumes coming through, active development and game improvement is going to end somewhat prematurely.

There’s quite a few “positive” reviews that are actually negative. I dont know why people do this, but reading a few of the positive reviews give a different impression than 50/50.

These are from highlighted “positive” reviews:

I absolutely hate civ switching; I tried giving it a chance, but it practically ruins the experience. I play Civ games to invest in my singular civilization—to see one civilization stand the test of time—not see it be remade every age. If something has to change between ages, it should be leaders, not civs.

Another one:

The tagline for the franchise used to be “Build a Civilization to Stand the Test of Time”. You can’t do that in the new game. It’s still playable and still entertaining. But it’s not Civilization.

Next one:

I like the game, but I honestly don't have much faith in it ever being redeemed like every other Civilization game, solely because some mechanic as so deeply ingrained into the blood of this game that removing them would leave nothing but a shallow husk. At that point you might as well ask for CIV VIII.

That’s 3 out of the 5 most helpful positive reviews. I think the problem with eras and civ switching is larger than people think - more than just polarising.

The last 2 positive reviews were actually positive.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Opinions will vary of course, personally i have seen enough to convince me that the game is doing poorly on PC.
What i don't know is how well the game is doing on other platforms, is it possible other platforms are outperforming PC (in terms of units sold and revenue)?

If so, we may see a further shift away from PC?

We had polls here and on reddit with slightly differently formulated questions and we got about 15% of users playing Civ7 outside Steam. However, there's a question of how well this represents all players. For example, both communities mostly consist of old time Civ players, who mostly played the game on PC. The fact that all communities are English-speaking is also important, because there are huge Asian markets with much bigger console use. So, I'd say 20%±15% outside Steam.

Regarding the first part, the problem here is what we don't have the definition of "good" performance. From the data we have, Civ7 had more preorders than Civ6 (it was stated directly), but worse post-launch Steam sales in the first 6 months (that could be deducted from multiple sources). But considering Civ6 was a huge success, went on sale much earlier and often, had winter holidays in those 6 months, we don't know how bad it is. Sure, we have much more negative reviews than for Civ6 and it clearly hurts sales, but again, we don't know how much. Again, it's important to remember that Civ6 was a huge success and Civ7 doesn't need to repeat it to be just successful.

So, I find it totally possible that Civ7 is actually selling within original expectations, but probably close to the lower end.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There’s quite a few “positive” reviews that are actually negative.

There are also negative reviews which are actually positive. For example, there are people who like the game but give negative reviews because of Denuvo or pricing.

And overall it's normal for positive reviews to be less radical. If you can't enjoy the game in a first hour and refund, you're unlikely to found any positive things about it. On the other hand, people who enjoy the game often spend hundreds of hours in it and inevitable found things they don't like (Civ7 offers a lot of reasons for).

 

[sonicmyst]

I play both on PC and Steam Deck. On Steam Deck, Civ VII plays well.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Yeah, i dont buy that. Civ switching is a major change to make with the excuse of "early versus late game civs" You could fix that by just giving all civs special units in early, mid and late.

Or not even bother. Civ6 had different civs getting different power spikes at different times, and it helped shake things up.

 

[GeneralZift]

Civ4 remaster would be quite nice, would give me a reason to play it for the first time.

Civ5 remaster would be very good - It's just a weirdly optimised game. Yesterday I was playing Civ5 and totally baffled as to why my Laptop fans are going crazy.
My PC is definitely good enough to be able to run Civ5, hell I mean, I can run Halo Infinite, GTA5, Hitman WOA with no difficulties.
So clearly something weird is going on there.

Civ6 DLC for the AI would be worth more than the expansions