Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[reddishrecue]

Have you ever played Civ 6 past the mid game?

I have. Its actually great.

 

[Crashdummy]

I dont know if its nostalgia or what, but i do consider Civ 4 the best IMO, that being said, Civ 5 and 6 are good Civ games. All three of them are much better than Civ 7

 

[fantsu]

Undeniable facts are that this game is way overpriced.
They should cut the price to $19,90 to reflect on the mobile quality of the product. Sure, some Steam players pay anything, but that is not the norm on educated players around the world.

 

[Kev1916]

Undeniable facts are that this game is way overpriced.
They should cut the price to $19,90 to reflect on the mobile quality of the product. Sure, some Steam players pay anything, but that is not the norm on educated players around the world.

For sure , all part of the con , I mean for the Switch version it is $60 for the cut version !!!

Really a game designed in the main for the Switch and to round it off you can only play this "civ" on tiny maps

 

[Krajzen]

I’ll concede that Civ 7 never did anything as egregious as lock whole mechanics behind a Day 1 Paywall, but immediately selling Civs is still ridiculous.

I gotta admit, I have never ever expected Firaxis to have the audacity to lock such an obvious obligatory civ as goddamn England/Britain behind DLC... It left a really bad taste in my mouth, that dlc is pretty much "obligatory" for everyone, like that's literally the #1 biggest empire in history and the most influential for our irl everyday reality, we all speak here in the language it has left behind as a lingua franca and the game is made by its colony, it's also necessary for any major "historical scenarios" of the past few centuries... About the only thing even more audacious than that would be locking ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome behind DLC lmao (or the entirety of India or China in pre civ7 era)

 

[GeneralZift]

I gotta admit, I have never ever expected Firaxis to have the audacity to lock such an obvious obligatory civ as goddamn England/Britain behind DLC... It left a really bad taste in my mouth, that dlc is pretty much "obligatory" for everyone, like that's literally the #1 biggest empire in history and the most influential for our irl everyday reality, we all speak here in the language it has left behind as a lingua franca and the game is made by its colony, it's also necessary for any major "historical scenarios" of the past few centuries... About the only thing even more audacious than that would be locking ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome behind DLC lmao (or the entirety of India or China in pre civ7 era)

I mean not just this, but if you think of the implications, it's worse when it comes to the Leaders

All the main 'Civ' leaders are missing, so they'll be obvious DLC. No Genghis (and they said "oh wow I can't believe we forgot about that")

And no Montezuma, none of the American presidents (Abe, Theo or George at least).
No Kings or Queens of England. Or prime minister even.

No Gandhi but obviously some people don't want him, even though this is the perfect game for him.

No Musa OR any black male at all. Not even Alexander showed up.

I'm not trying to sound like I'm complaining because I know for certain most of these will come to Civ7, but just be aware that you'll be paying for all the big ticket iconic leaders who were previously free.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I gotta admit, I have never ever expected Firaxis to have the audacity to lock such an obvious obligatory civ as goddamn England/Britain behind DLC... It left a really bad taste in my mouth, that dlc is pretty much "obligatory" for everyone, like that's literally the #1 biggest empire in history and the most influential for our irl everyday reality, we all speak here in the language it has left behind as a lingua franca and the game is made by its colony, it's also necessary for any major "historical scenarios" of the past few centuries... About the only thing even more audacious than that would be locking ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome behind DLC lmao (or the entirety of India or China in pre civ7 era)

I really don't know what happened there. Yes, modern age would look pretty Eurocentric if Siam would be replaced with Britain on release, but geographic representation was more or less ok with Japan, India and China representing Asia.

 

[Siptah]

I'm not trying to sound like I'm complaining because I know for certain most of these will come to Civ7, but just be aware that you'll be paying for all the big ticket iconic leaders who were previously free.

But you got something else in return for free. Some might not have the same big name, obviously. You can't replace Alexander and his role in history with anyone, not even with his dad. But Napoleon (twice!) is probably the closest... Ibn Battuta didn't conquer the world, unlike Alexander, but he travelled it like no one ever before (and you can make a point no one ever after). There's no black male leader, but two black females. There's no US president, but Ben Franklin. Etc. It depends a bit how you define the categories whether what we got fulfills you desires or not. But I think styling it as previously big names were free, now you have to pay for them isn't quite fair. Especially, as not all of the big ticket iconic leaders have been free in 5 and 6 as well. On the other hand, there are big ticket iconic "leaders" that are here now, such as Friedrich or Xerxes or Confucius that have been missing in some or all previous iterations. And Louis XIV is also kind of irreplaceable, but hasn't made it into the game since civ 4, and Ramesses was very late paid DLC for civ 6, etc.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think it's a totally fair characterisation and it's pretty abundantly clear that's their monteisation strategy now - build rapport and tradition then lock behind micro transaction.

There is also the reasoning that they want to boost representation in a number of ways and make Civ more global, but I think it's more than just naive to think the monetisation strategy didn't play into how many typical Civ archetypes are missing from basegame this time round.

Every if you want to assume the best there, we have major Civs DLC locked and split into 3, with less than the equivalent themed Civs costing more than in previous iterations. Again there's the justification that can be provided, historically blah blah blah, but you take all these decisions together and a pattern forms.

Isn't it interesting that all the ways Civ has quite radically changed in its form this time around just so happen to also be excellent ways to monetise selling more little packages to you? Happy little accident I guess...

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think it's a totally fair characterisation and it's pretty abundantly clear that's their monteisation strategy now - build rapport and tradition then lock behind micro transaction.

DLC model is not the same as microtransactions, they are very different in many aspects.

 

[GeneralZift]

But you got something else in return for free. Some might not have the same big name, obviously. You can't replace Alexander and his role in history with anyone, not even with his dad. But Napoleon (twice!) is probably the closest... Ibn Battuta didn't conquer the world, unlike Alexander, but he travelled it like no one ever before (and you can make a point no one ever after). There's no black male leader, but two black females. There's no US president, but Ben Franklin. Etc. It depends a bit how you define the categories whether what we got fulfills you desires or not. But I think styling it as previously big names were free, now you have to pay for them isn't quite fair. Especially, as not all of the big ticket iconic leaders have been free in 5 and 6 as well. On the other hand, there are big ticket iconic "leaders" that are here now, such as Friedrich or Xerxes or Confucius that have been missing in some or all previous iterations. And Louis XIV is also kind of irreplaceable, but hasn't made it into the game since civ 4, and Ramesses was very late paid DLC for civ 6, etc.

You make a very good point, for example when it comes to Ben Franklin.
But I feel sometimes it's false equivalence. Does Napoleon feel like playing Alexander? They shouldn't because one was Ancient and one was more Modern.
When you think of England, who do you think of? No hate towards Lovelace but I'm sort of looking to play against and as a Royal.
I don't have issues with new characters coming to the game, but they came first, and locked the fan favourites behind.

Its like a fighting game sequel that ships with 0 of the main cast and all new characters, then releases the rest as DLC.

That being said, it's a common strategy nowadays. I guess you can't be too upset.

It does damage the launch state of the game however. They can try to fix it later, like they did it with V and VI.

But it's a far cry from the roaring success we want a Civ game to be from the start, which is what we should be expecting from AAA titles that cost 70 quid.

 

[Siptah]

You make a very good point, for example when it comes to Ben Franklin.
But I feel sometimes it's false equivalence. Does Napoleon feel like playing Alexander? They shouldn't because one was Ancient and one was more Modern.
When you think of England, who do you think of? No hate towards Lovelace but I'm sort of looking to play against and as a Royal.
I don't have issues with new characters coming to the game, but they came first, and locked the fan favourites behind.

Its like a fighting game sequel that ships with 0 of the main cast and all new characters, then releases the rest as DLC.

That being said, it's a common strategy nowadays. I guess you can't be too upset.

It does damage the launch state of the game however. They can try to fix it later, like they did it with V and VI.

But it's a far cry from the roaring success we want a Civ game to be from the start, which is what we should be expecting from AAA titles that cost 70 quid.

I can comprehend your thoughts and also agree to some.

But maybe it‘s also our tastes that differ here. I like new faces. I‘m totally fine replacing recurring characters with new ones (e.g., Rome, Egypt, and France have each 10 A-material leaders and we see the same ones repeated nonetheless. And Greece probably suffered most because of that), because I like the novelty and to learn more about leaders I didn‘t know. Sadly, 7 didn‘t quite deliver here, and had some leaders that I wasn‘t familiar with but aren‘t terribly interesting to learn about (Himiko) or I only knew loosely but also don‘t think they are too interesting (Lafayette and Rizal). These are the worst of both worlds imo - neither known nor thrilling. Edit: I’d like to call this the „Gorgo disappointment“.

 

[Leucarum]

I suspect that with England/Great Britain the thought was that they already had the Normans representing them...

With the DLC question, previous Civ games have sold small DLCs with individual civs or a handful too... I would say the difference with 7 isn't that it feels more microtransaction-y but that only getting to play a civ for 1/3 of the game makes the purchase feel like worse value.

At least for me, microtransactions would be more like "Rome is about to build the Pyramids before you, would you like to spend 50 SidBuckz to get some more production"

 

[Siptah]

I suspect that with England/Great Britain the thought was that they already had the Normans representing them...

It would have been perfect timing to include a Norman ruler of England or one of Norman descent to make this point clearer. Richard I might have been the „iconic“ pick.

With the DLC question, previous Civ games have sold small DLCs with individual civs or a handful too... I would say the difference with 7 isn't that it feels more microtransaction-y but that only getting to play a civ for 1/3 of the game makes the purchase feel like worse value.

I think on top of that, it‘s the bundle aspect. You are forced to buy 4 civs and 2 not even necessarily related leaders. Even if you only want one or two civs. Gameplay-wise I actually could have done without Britain and Bolivar tbh. If I hadn‘t purchased the founder‘s edition and had a chance to purchase the content individually, I might have skipped these until a sale and just went with Carthage, Bulgaria, and Nepal. But having to buy things you don‘t actually value makes the packs less appealing in my eyes. In that respect, civ V and VII were better packaged, as most civs were individual packs.

 

[Leucarum]

I think on top of that, it‘s the bundle aspect. You are forced to buy 4 civs and 2 not even necessarily related leaders.

Yeah. Bundles definitely were a negative for me. Out of Crossroads I liked 3 elements (Nepal, Carthage and Ada) so it's not too bad, but thus far the only element of R2R I am excited by is Assyria - unless there's something very compelling about the rest of the pack I'm definitely having buyers remorse.

At the moment, civs can be purchased individually though, is this likely to be permanent do we know?

I wonder if modern civs in particular would struggle to sell if sold individually at the moment? It doesn't sound as if many people are playing that long into the game. But I'm an antiquity-phile so that's also my innate bias.

 

[socratic]

I think it's a totally fair characterisation and it's pretty abundantly clear that's their monteisation strategy now - build rapport and tradition then lock behind micro transaction.

There is also the reasoning that they want to boost representation in a number of ways and make Civ more global, but I think it's more than just naive to think the monetisation strategy didn't play into how many typical Civ archetypes are missing from basegame this time round.

Every if you want to assume the best there, we have major Civs DLC locked and split into 3, with less than the equivalent themed Civs costing more than in previous iterations. Again there's the justification that can be provided, historically blah blah blah, but you take all these decisions together and a pattern forms.

Isn't it interesting that all the ways Civ has quite radically changed in its form this time around just so happen to also be excellent ways to monetise selling more little packages to you? Happy little accident I guess...

Yes and no. I don’t think “wanting civ to be more global” is the reason why the leader choice at launch is so odd. The leader choice (especially at launch) is not global, it’s filled with American and European leaders. There are more European leaders than there are European Civs in any given era. What sucks is that despite having the most leaders, Europe is still missing much needed representation (looking at Greece). The diverse Civ choice does not match its leader pool. Its often I see Lafayette awkwardly leading India because his regular civ choices are already taken up by the other two French leaders.

 

[Siptah]

Yes and no. I don’t think “wanting civ to be more global” is the reason why the leader choice at launch is so odd. The leader choice (especially at launch) is not global, it’s filled with American and European leaders. There are more European leaders than there are European Civs in any given era. What sucks is that despite having the most leaders, Europe is still missing much needed representation (looking at Greece). The diverse Civ choice does not match its leader pool. Its often I see Lafayette awkwardly leading India because his regular civ choices are already taken up by the other two French leaders.

Indeed. The leader selection process seems very unclear. It doesn’t match the civs (which can be claimed to have been selected with global representation as one of the goal), and also not the ages, as there are strong clusters for antiquity and 1700-1850, with the rest being rather, but not fully, empty. Holding back on some favorites might have influenced the leader choice, but I can‘t quite see how this led to what we‘ve ended up with. There are probably many factors at play, including novelty and familiarity, but I find it puzzling that no one said „there‘s too much France, America, and Revolutionaries“ when deciding on the final set (whether this set included CotW and RtR or not).

 

[GeneralZift]

I have. Its actually great.

Civ6 has a pretty interesting mid-late game mechanically. I just don't know why it came at the cost of the Civ5 mid-late game. It should have had both.

Civ6 is missing the ideology wars, and the Civ6 World Congress is stupid, and the AI doesn't try anything risky or interesting in the late game like they do in Civ5. (on normal difficulty).

Ideally wish we had both in one game somehow

 

[Xur]

I think it's a totally fair characterisation and it's pretty abundantly clear that's their monteisation strategy now - build rapport and tradition then lock behind micro transaction.

There is also the reasoning that they want to boost representation in a number of ways and make Civ more global, but I think it's more than just naive to think the monetisation strategy didn't play into how many typical Civ archetypes are missing from basegame this time round.

Every if you want to assume the best there, we have major Civs DLC locked and split into 3, with less than the equivalent themed Civs costing more than in previous iterations. Again there's the justification that can be provided, historically blah blah blah, but you take all these decisions together and a pattern forms.

Isn't it interesting that all the ways Civ has quite radically changed in its form this time around just so happen to also be excellent ways to monetise selling more little packages to you? Happy little accident I guess...

In my opinion, a desire to please a global crowd, would mean less obscure leaders like the non-leaders. Before civ7 I had no idea who Harriet Tubman was and after civ7 I have no interest in her as she was not a leader - she is irrelevant in a civ game (leader) setting. This is a very American centric person. Same can be said about Ada Lovelace, Benjamin Franklin, Confucius, José Rizal, Lafayette and Machiavelly - it's shallow American pop history irrelevant to the game (in a leader capacity).

It would stand to reason that including well-known leaders and civilizations would please a global crowd more than the opposite.

I would also expect fewer obscure native (north) american tribes. More African, Asian and South American civs. I know it's an American company and American product, but it is obviously including some odd civs from that region that has very little global pull. Many European civs is not strange, as it's a dominant region that has impacted the development of the entire globe for centuries. There's also a lot of customers in that region. I personally don't care about my own country being in the game, because it's only somewhat interesting 1000 years ago. But I do care about many of the European countries. I'm guessing I'm not alone in such an interest.

If they made equal amount of civs for each continent, I think it would be less globally attractive because it would be a step back from historical importance and things would be become even stranger. The omission of certain civs would stand out more than including a lot of European civs.

Anyway, I think civ7 is less globally attractive than most other civ games. Not only because of leaders/civs, but the entire design of the game. I would prefer a bigger focus on civs and just add a generic leader that has changing clothes for each era. Then we could discuss gameplay and ignore pointless leader discussions.

But I do agree with you about monetization. That's why I have come to hate "leaders" as a concept. But what do I know, maybe people want obscure leaders and civs.

 

[pjotroos]

Yes and no. I don’t think “wanting civ to be more global” is the reason why the leader choice at launch is so odd. The leader choice (especially at launch) is not global, it’s filled with American and European leaders. There are more European leaders than there are European Civs in any given era. What sucks is that despite having the most leaders, Europe is still missing much needed representation (looking at Greece). The diverse Civ choice does not match its leader pool. Its often I see Lafayette awkwardly leading India because his regular civ choices are already taken up by the other two French leaders.

The "recommended civilization" feature in the game does a fantastic job showcasing that.
Rome is recommended civilization for 10 leaders, Spain and French Empire for 9, Normans for 8.
The average amount of linked leaders for any non-European civ is 3. The only outliers (i.e. more than 4) are Hawa'i at 5 and Abbasid at 7 (which includes Ada Lovelace and Isabella). Han, Ming and Qing all get 1 - Confucius.
The disparity definitely contributes to the transitions feeling jarring, if you try to play semi-historically.