Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[canadamufc]

Damn, a lot of hitpieces on VII recently from SaxyGamer, Boesthius, and Marbozir. Sort of telling and kind of sad.

 

[Skojardu]

Damn, a lot of hitpieces on VII recently from SaxyGamer, Boesthius, and Marbozir. Sort of telling and kind of sad.

Potato McWhiskey is completely off Civ, and Emotional Husky is flirting with Old World now. Being a Civ streamer is awkward, unless you are catering to grizzled vets with Civ 3 and 4 content.

 

[Crashdummy]

I've been thinking about making a thread concerning this slogan. Does it actually express, I wonder, the satisfactions that people who like the game find in it?

At the end of a game of Civ 7, do players say, "Now, there's something I believe in!"

What does it mean to "believe in" a particular civ? Believe that those three civlets should have collectively been a civ in this world?

Or do the game mechanics in some other way allow one to believe and then build something that conforms to that belief?

Was it hard to believe in your civ in 1-6, and now it has become more possible to do so?

I ask because I didn't see any of the advance press or the advertising since then put any degree of specificity to what it is that this phrase means.

And I haven't heard players who like the game say, "Man, 7 finally lets me build a civ I believe in!"

I mean, we all know they made a big shift in 7, but is this phrase really the best one for capturing what's supposed to be fun and special about 7?

Do you do that--build something you believe in--more in this game than in earlier versions?

They had to remove the previous slogan due to the new changes and tried to replafe it with something that makes sense. Unfortunately, the new changes dont allow for much player attachment, since by the time you start getting attached to something you get it removed

Thats why they had to go way too abstract with the slogan. You can believe in anything, literally, so they probably thought they cant go wrong with that one. Unfortunately for them, no one will get driven by such slogan, unlike the previous one that ended up driving the whole franchise

Its one more indicator of how poorly thought these changes were

 

[criZp]

Whenever I hear the new slogan all I can think of is "I still don't understand what that phrase is supposed to mean". Surely misesfan is right that the marketers just cooked up some superficially nice-sounding nonsense.

 

[GeneralZift]

New slogans board meeting

Do something you like sometimes.
Be a person who is important
Build something that stays with you
Live through the things that you believe in
Can you believe the test of time?

 

[Gorbles]

I do like that we're all memory-holing that the slogan changed before (from "civilisation" to "empire"). Not entirely sure what the tangent has to do with the topic, though.

 

[Kev1916]

I do like that we're all memory-holing that the slogan changed before (from "civilisation" to "empire"). Not entirely sure what the tangent has to do with the topic, though.

Memory going big guy ? it went from Empire to Civilsation ..

 

[stealth_nsk]

I actually wanted to think a bit on this graph

We quite easily accepted that with the discount and settler edition Civ7 got an influx of new players, who left a lot of negative reviews and went further. But the real interesting question - why those reviews were mostly negative, but reviews before stabilized on mixed and maybe even slightly positive? What's the difference between audiences in those parts? I see some possible explanations:

1. The audience who purchased the game during this big discount mostly consisted of old-time civ fans who didn't want to pay full price, but had the game in their wishlist. Now they bought it and reacted like a significant part of old time fans. However, this assumes that the mixed reviews before were left by some other people - so these are some random purchases happening from people not very familiar with the game?
2. People tend to leave negative reviews immediately after the game purchase, but if they play for some time, they leave more positive reviews, maybe even changing their original negative ones. This could explain pretty quick stabilization to mixed soon after the discount
3. Expansion on previous point - seeing the game improved with patches, people look at the game in more positive way than if they jump in and see the current state of the game

I'm really curious to know which factors are actually in play here.

 

[Gorbles]

Memory going big guy ? it went from Empire to Civilsation ..

I don't think the way round it changed matters so much as the fact it changed, given the meal people are making out of it changing again.

Though I guess it is relevant how much some people now attach to civilisation, given that in VII your empire - the thing that you're managing, as the player - still exists across Ages. The flavour of it changes, the historical period its set in changes, but the empire endures (which is exactly what the Crisis mechanic is meant to emulate - however well or poorly that it does).

Would "civ-switching" be as much of an issue, if the tagline hadn't changed from "empire"? Would people still be using the change in tagline, if that hadn't happened, given the particular focus on what counts as a civilisation and how VII is changing that?

 

[Gori the Grey]

New slogans board meeting

Believe the build!
Something, something, something. Something!

 

[aieeegrunt]

I still can’t believe people will play with semantics rather than accept that changing the core identity of a succesfull and long established franchise is going to predictably blow up in your face.

The spike of negative reviews after the sale?

More people tried the game, realized it wasn’t Ci, , and hated it

I mean how complicated is that?

 

[kotpeter]

I'm really curious to know which factors are actually in play here.

I think it's due to the fact that Civ 7 raised the barrier of entry for the game higher than Civ 6 (it's harder to understand what's going on and why in the game, amplified by disruptive game stages like crises and age transitions), and its value for money is much worse than Civ 5/6 for obvious reasons like sales and years of content and support. Not to mention the fact that people who wanted "civ 6 but better" are almost guaranteed to be disappointed and leave a negative review.

But people who get through these disruptions and embrace changes are eventually satisfied with the game, and some of them leave positive reviews. Patches have decently improved state of the game, so the number of eventually satisfied people went higher.

Speaking of civ 7 reception, it seems like the Reddit community is much less negative towards Civ 7 these days. And civfanatics too if we omit those 10+ people who constantly express negativity towards almost everything civ7-related, be it UI or game slogan.

 

[AD1730]

Speaking of civ 7 reception, it seems like the Reddit community is much less negative towards Civ 7 these days. And civfanatics too if we omit those 10+ people who constantly express negativity towards almost everything civ7-related, be it UI or game slogan.

It's likely because many people who dislike the game have left or lost hope in it.

 

[Leucarum]

It's hard to tell... But I think the idea that people have moved on if they absolutely hate the game checks out.

A lot of the places where people engaged seem both quieter than normal and not as hostile as social media. That includes Civ fanatics, just look at the series discussing the civs/leaders. Those seem so quiet I'm surprised. Meanwhile the Civ7 discord paints such a rosy picture I presume there's a lot of moderation going on, as nowhere on the internet is that positive...

Meanwhile youtube appears to have fully become hostile territory to Civ7. There's almost no lets plays with reasonable numbers of views, and the most positive videos you find are the ones tracking changes to see if it's good yet. That could be down to the algorithm, but it still matters given how many people get their news/opinions from there!

 

[Acken]

It's likely because many people who dislike the game have left or lost hope in it.

I've tried to maintain a fair look on the game and give it a chance but the fact is that I went into vacation a couple months back and then completely forgot the game exists.
For the first time in the franchise I may actually have no interest in any expansion too.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think it's due to the fact that Civ 7 raised the barrier of entry for the game higher than Civ 6 (it's harder to understand what's going on and why in the game, amplified by disruptive game stages like crises and age transitions)

I strongly disagree here. Civ6 after 2 expansions is bloated with weird mechanics and it's really hard to grasp for new players. Civ7 splitting by ages makes learning each age easier (although probably adds to learning the game in general).

Meanwhile youtube appears to have fully become hostile territory hostile to Civ7. There's almost no lets plays with reasonable numbers of views, and the most positive videos you find are the ones tracking changes to see if it's good yet. That could be down to the algorithm, but it still matters given how many people get their news/opinions from there!

Youtubers go where views are, but they are reactive, so there could be some delays. I wouldn't be surprised if several recent negative cideos we got were trying to catch the wave of negativity which happened some time ago.

 

[Xur]

I think it's due to the fact that Civ 7 raised the barrier of entry for the game higher than Civ 6 (it's harder to understand what's going on and why in the game, amplified by disruptive game stages like crises and age transitions), and its value for money is much worse than Civ 5/6 for obvious reasons like sales and years of content and support. Not to mention the fact that people who wanted "civ 6 but better" are almost guaranteed to be disappointed and leave a negative review.

But people who get through these disruptions and embrace changes are eventually satisfied with the game, and some of them leave positive reviews. Patches have decently improved state of the game, so the number of eventually satisfied people went higher.

Speaking of civ 7 reception, it seems like the Reddit community is much less negative towards Civ 7 these days. And civfanatics too if we omit those 10+ people who constantly express negativity towards almost everything civ7-related, be it UI or game slogan.

You make it sound like it's the minority of people that are negative towards the game. How many are positive around here? I see 3 or 4 people defending the game and at times suspending reality to do so. At least the negative criticism isn't entirely delusional and they are somewhat constructive. If we "omit" those pesky 53% negative reviews on steam, we would have a 100% positive reviews. Man, I'm so stupid, why didn't I think of that. Civ7 is perfect now.

 

[Leucarum]

Youtubers go where views are, but they arlmll9 reactive, so there could be some delays. I wouldn't be surprised if several recent negative cideos we got were trying to catch the wave of negativity which happened some time ago.

It could easily be that, the trouble is that if that's where the views are... That's that people are watching... If that's the opinion which is being spread to potential customers it still matters.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It could easily be that, the trouble is that if that's where the views are... That's that people are watching... If that's the opinion which is being spread to potential customers it still matters.

I've just got another view. In the current situation with the game, discussing hot takes brings more viewers than actually streaming it. I hope by what we see the situation will change soon

 

[Gorbles]

I still can’t believe people will play with semantics

If engaging with people raising the fact that the tagline changed is playing with semantics, what does that mean for the people raising the fact that the tagline changed?

Isn't the entire tangent semantics?