Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Verified_Confection_Being]

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

You've got hung up on on a word here rather than the sentiment. Ignore the word microtransactions, it doesn't matter how you or I define it. For the purposes of this conversation, you can just read it as "additional player spend", as that's how it was intended in context, and is not incorrect

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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)

Honestly you could have renamed "Mughals" to "British Raj" and kill two birds with one stone.
It would fit with the Sepoy UU and the Stepwell improvement that they already have.

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.

Alexander was even DLC in Civ 6. The only "free" iconic leaders were Gandhi and Montezuma (free DLC).

 

[stealth_nsk]

You've got hung up on on a word here rather than the sentiment. Ignore the word microtransactions, it doesn't matter how you or I define it. For the purposes of this conversation, you can just read it as "additional player spend", as that's how it was intended in context, and is not incorrect

I think there's some issue, though. DLC model is a way of segmentation between premium users, regular ones, etc. although the difference between them is not that big.

When words like "microtransactions" or "milking" are used, they usually refer without payment cap, so some customers pays tens of thousands dollars and the game constantly pushes them to pay.

I believe using those terms is wrong on emotional level.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think there's some issue, though. DLC model is a way of segmentation between premium users, regular ones, etc. although the difference between them is not that big.

When words like "microtransactions" or "milking" are used, they usually refer without payment cap, so some customers pays tens of thousands dollars and the game constantly pushes them to pay.

I believe using those terms is wrong on emotional level.

I don't particularly care about the phraseology, it simply respective of the taste the current model leaves in my mouth, which is neither here nor there to the argument I was making. I find it odd that you sidetrack the post to run PR for Firaxis as the language police, so I'm going to leave this conversation here.

 

[ombak]

I don't particularly care about the phraseology, it simply respective of the taste the current model leaves in my mouth, which is neither here nor there to the argument I was making. I find it odd that you sidetrack the post to run PR for Firaxis as the language police, so I'm going to leave this conversation here.

I think your feeling that they all leave a bad taste in your mouth is valid, but it can still be important to separate these things, and it's not a "PR" thing (which, by the way, is phraseology that matters as well).

The reason it's important to separate these is that they are different models not only in name, but in audiences they target and patterns they reveal and how resources are spent on them. There are still clear lines between DLC and microtransactions in the sense they are generally talked about (they can be conflated too, but I don't think that's the case here).

So, again, some players will validly not care either way, but other players might look forward to DLC that they see as content and will draw a line at microtransactions that might be cosmetic only, might rely on whales to generate revenue, etc.

 

[GeneralZift]

Alexander was even DLC in Civ 6. The only "free" iconic leaders were Gandhi and Montezuma (free DLC).

Yes and it sucked there too. Just because 6 did it bad doesn't mean we should double down..

Now let's be clear too, that's not strictly true. Civ6 had Queen Victoria, Saladin and Cleopatra.

I forgot who else they shipped with, but Civ6 had an okay starting roster nonetheless. And they still had the relevant archetypes like "a British royal" "an American president"

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Now let's be clear too, that's not strictly true. Civ6 had Queen Victoria, Saladin and Cleopatra.

I was thinking more of the fact that "iconic" meant they were included in every previous game. Cleopatra would be the most "iconic" out of these choices, being in 3 games to the others only being in 2, but iconic doesn't always mean the best either.

I forgot who else they shipped with, but Civ6 had an okay starting roster nonetheless. And they still had the relevant archetypes like "a British royal" "an American president"

I didn't mind most of the roster, besides Catherine de'Medici initially, and quite preferred it to Civ 7. But I'm not even sure we'll be guaranteed that this time around we'll get "a British royal" or "an American president" considering any historical figure is a possibility.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Have you ever played Civ 6 past the mid game?

Yes, I’ve played every game since Civ 4. I can confidently say the game felt just as stale late game in Civ 4 (and 4 is my favorite of the franchise, I’d rather 6 my second favorite).

 

[Kwami]

Now let's be clear too, that's not strictly true. Civ6 had Queen Victoria, Saladin and Cleopatra.

But VII also has some classic and iconic leaders like Napoleon (he's DLC, but free), Augustus, Catherine the Great, Charlemagne, Hatshepsut, Isabella, etc.

 

[The Civs 6]

All I can say is if you enjoyed Civ 6 after turn 150 I can see why you might like Civ 7...

 

[Marla_Singer]

Yes, I’ve played every game since Civ 4. I can confidently say the game felt just as stale late game in Civ 4 (and 4 is my favorite of the franchise, I’d rather 6 my second favorite).

In Civ1 and Civ2, the world felt more dynamic, sometimes chaotic, with AIs suddenly conqueering each other mid-game and disrupting the balance of power. This created a sense of drama, often driven by hidden variables meant to enhance the player's experience. In Civ3 and Civ4, the AI became much tougher to beat, snowballing as fast if not faster than you. It could launch deadly attacks at any time, keeping you hooked with a constant sense of threat untill the end.

From Civ5 onward, the series shifted toward more symmetrical gameplay, with AIs playing more like humans and wars becoming less central. Some players enjoyed what they saw as a "fairer" game, yet it also increased the feeling of inertia. The pseudo-historical power dynamics, where situations could change abruptly, were largely reduced. Players demographics shifted with it: many older fans moved on, replaced by newer ones looking for a different experience relying more on puzzle-solving than on preventing attacks.

Firaxis kept numbering entries to suggest a continuous progress, but in practice they changed the nature of the franchise. The steady renewal of players helped mask this, but the poor reception of Civ7 has exposed an identity crisis that has been building for decades.

 

[GeneralZift]

But VII also has some classic and iconic leaders like Napoleon (he's DLC, but free), Augustus, Catherine the Great, Charlemagne, Hatshepsut, Isabella, etc.

That's true, when compared to VI, it's adequate, but in general, it's still lacklustre.
The characters that are in are not the problem, it's the characters that are missing despite being very obvious choices. And they're only missing so they can be sold.

Let me put this way.
If Civ had competition, they'd be looking to nail the leader and Civ composition almost perfectly off the bat so that you'd be satisfied and not play something else.

Makes sense right? But because they don't, they take the liberty to experiment with the base roster and reserve the easy wins for later. But remember you still pay extra for the easy wins. And again, it affects the launch state, however minutely.

If you wanted to make a Civ competitor right now, and I point at Millennia, Ara, Old World, Humankind.
Would you release it missing something like Great Britain and then Sell it later? Or would you probably try to get the best user experience at launch to grab a playerbase?

 

[Siptah]

If you wanted to make a Civ competitor right now, and I point at Millennia, Ara, Old World, Humankind.
Would you release it missing something like Great Britain and then Sell it later? Or would you probably try to get the best user experience at launch to grab a playerbase?

I think it's interesting that Millennia has few civs (21), despite these being only a flag, name, two city lists (one very short, one a little bit longer), and an irrelevant little bonus. So, for this game, I don't think they were trying to beat the civilization series with civs.

Humankind certainly tried to beat civilization and provided many important cultures that have never made it into a civ game. Partly, because they don't have a good leader that civ could have used (e.g., Harappa, Mycenae, Mississippians). Also, they realized that civ switching required more cultures, so having a large starting roster (60) was kind of necessary. The fabulous continent DLC packs added a whole bunch of interesting civs that never made it into a civ game, and many likely never will. Currently, it has 79 civs in total. I'm sure that one of the ideas of Amplitude was to make the civilization main game rosters, whether at launch (civ 6: 18 or 19) or final (civ 6: 50), look small and satisfy the people which were always craving for other civs, and especially more African, South American, and Polynesian civs – which civ is traditionally very good at overlooking. I think this is also one reason why 7's roster now feels a bit lackluster, even with 39 civs. HK was just very good at delivering the iconic and necessary civs, while also bringing in a whole lot of interesting and previously neglected others. In my opinion, it is clearly the best roster ever in a 4X game (if we exclude PDS games, of course), and 7 has a lot of work to do to come close. HK doesn't have many historical leaders though, but I also think they aren't really missing, because you play against persons or avatars made by your friends (at launch) and meanwhile even yourself (which means you can include any historical leader you want).

Ara also started with an extended roster of 42 leaders, although some civs have two of these. I think they also tried to outdo the civilization series with this. And Microsoft, in my opinion, went for what you describe: the civs make a rather conservative list, the only two "surprises" are Belgium and Palmyra (and that Bolivar leads Venezuela instead of Gran Colombia for some reason). The leaders are for the most part the civ staples and fan favorites. Gandhi is missing, and they added some non-leaders like Sappho (next to Alexander) and Hildegard von Bingen (next to Bismarck). They even added Tamar, the leader that was summoned by fans into civ VI. So, I think Ara tried to grab the player base by having a roster of civs and leaders nearly everybody (or at least nearly every civ player) knows. Whether it worked is unclear – it sold only around 50k copies (on Steam, maybe Microsoft and Xbox are a factor here), but that probably has other reasons than the civ selection. But to me, this looks for sure like the most "play it safe" roster of civs and leaders in all 4X games.

I think one difference is that a civilization main game can in a way afford to have a more interesting roster at launch. Meanwhile, we expect that many civs will appear later on. Some, even some of the most important in history I'd say, have/had a tradition of coming later.
- Isn't this the first time that Maya are in the base game (which I think should always have priority over Aztecs imho)?
- The Ottomans were never in a civ base game except for 5.
- Spain has been in base games (4 and 6), but missing in others (3 and 5)
- Babylon has been DLC in civ 5 and 6.
- The Zulu went from launch staple to DLC
Yet, I think no one was concerned that Aztecs, Babylon, Korean, Dutch or the Ottomans won't make it into the final set of civ 7 – at least before the game released. Now, of course you can label this as a monetization strategy (and it for sure is, and has been for the past 20 years, with a clear tendency to increase), but I believe there is also a big incentive to keep the starting roster at least in parts fresh, interesting, and not completely predictable. And I also believe that the added rule of 10 per era made this much harder to decide. It doesn't mean that the British had to be left out, or that one of Prussia/Russia/British had to be left out, as we concluded here way before release. But it makes this decision easier to comprehend, even if many others don't agree with the outcome. I also believe that the idea of Normans already representing "England" (as we never had Britain before in name, even if e.g., civ IV was certainly meant to be the British Empire and not the English) has some sense to it.

 

[Gorbles]

In Civ1 and Civ2, the world felt more dynamic, sometimes chaotic, with AIs suddenly conqueering each other mid-game and disrupting the balance of power. This created a sense of drama, often driven by hidden variables meant to enhance the player's experience. In Civ3 and Civ4, the AI became much tougher to beat, snowballing as fast if not faster than you. It could launch deadly attacks at any time, keeping you hooked with a constant sense of threat untill the end.

AIs knock each other out of the game in V and VI. "an unknown civilisation has been defeated" is a notice I'm used to reading pretty regularly (especially as I tend to play bigger games). I tend to only play Antiquity in VII so I don't see it as much there.

 

[Siptah]

AIs knock each other out of the game in V and VI. "an unknown civilisation has been defeated" is a notice I'm used to reading pretty regularly (especially as I tend to play bigger games). I tend to only play Antiquity in VII so I don't see it as much there.

Yes, AIs knock out each other in V and VI, but also mostly in the first third of the game, no? Which also happens in 7 btw, at least for me. Later on, it's rare that a civ gets knocked out without player intervention – and if it happens, it's a civ that had only one or two cities for a while.

And as a player, I think the threat in V and VI is just lower, because the benefit of defending is higher. Cities with ranged attack and health mean even weakly or undefended cities won't fall too quickly. And having some ranged units in your districts in 6 and an encampment at a strategic point... that gives a lot of safety. I'm still not sure where I would put 7 here. I think there's more of a threat than in V and VI, because walls seem weaker and cannot attack, and especially towns are often not well walled. But then again, I don't think I've ever lost a settlement that had 3-4 walled districts, as the AI isn't good in running them down quick enough as it seems. It burns its units on the walls and then doesn't commit to the final blow to actually take the district before moving on to the next wall.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, AIs knock out each other in V and VI, but also mostly in the first third of the game, no? Which also happens in 7 btw, at least for me. Later on, it's rare that a civ gets knocked out without player intervention – and if it happens, it's a civ that had only one or two cities for a while.

And as a player, I think the threat in V and VI is just lower, because the benefit of defending is higher. Cities with ranged attack and health mean even weakly or undefended cities won't fall too quickly. And having some ranged units in your districts in 6 and an encampment at a strategic point... that gives a lot of safety. I'm still not sure where I would put 7 here. I think there's more of a threat than in V and VI, because walls seem weaker and cannot attack, and especially towns are often not well walled. But then again, I don't think I've ever lost a settlement that had 3-4 walled districts, as the AI isn't good in running them down quick enough as it seems. It burns its units on the walls and then doesn't commit to the final blow to actually take the district before moving on to the next wall.

I found in VI stagnation only set in in the lategame (and mainly then due to issues properly using flyers, which was patched to some extent late in the game's lifecycle). It also depended on your barbarian settings - they could be a menace particularly for the AI well into the middle of the game.

I agree r.e. defenses though, but at the same time older games had defensive quirks (given how stacks were processed). When I was young and playing Civ 1, stacks in a city were only lost one at a time, for example. Can't remember how much the AI took advantage of that, though.

Overall, I just wanted to say that these things do happen in V and VI (and that VI in particular has things like the religion layer, and the culture spam, which keep you at least a little bit engaged as the game develops because the AI loves both of those unit categories).

 

[Siptah]

Oh yeah, Barbarians can be quite a threat to the AI and eliminate players in 6. In 7, coastal hostile IPs can be quite a menace (and the crisis barbarians). I've actually lost a few settlements to attacks by 3 boats. If you don't have archers already, there isn't really a good defense against these, and the AI also struggles here and often loses a settlement. But this is all antiquity stuff, and not late game.

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah, boats in Antiquity are a menace (not helped by how hard it is to beeline them yourself as a player). Not really complaining about that, though, the pacing is alright (boats normally start being a real problem halfway through Antiquity, roughly when you need a bit of pressure anyway).

 

[fantsu]

IV was the last game where AI was an intelligent threat for sure. Taking out each other, late game capitulating to other AI:s as well.
V was using Civ:Rev AI from consoles, just making them even less of an competition. From that point Civ as an series has been developed more for an casual console children, where players would probably get mad losing a game. I could not think of losing games in these iterations, winning on Deity is automatic, not sure if the AI can even win?

 

[stealth_nsk]

IV was the last game where AI was an intelligent threat for sure. Taking out each other, late game capitulating to other AI:s as well.

That because the game was much easier for AI to handle, not because AI was better. Not only Civ1-4 had much simpler combat tactics, but stacks of doom also allowed AI to directly convert their huge yields into challenge.