Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[reyaik]

The civ-olution over the ages/chapters is not a bad gameplay decision. It does make the game richer and arguably also justifies a higher price via add-on content. The main issue is that the studio went about it the wrong way. They have simply not studied the player base well enough. They could have achieved the same game economics and mechanics with letting player decide on a meta civ upfront (aka "China", "America," or "Germanic") and then easing the player in with a starting combination like "Han" or "Gaul". Depending on the gameplay decision and narrative events the player engages in, this could have evolved into "Tang", "Song", "Ming" or "Norman", "Frank", etc. You get the sense of it. I think in a CIV8 that would be the most reasonable workaround. The current system, which I don't hate, still has "humankind" vibes; for instance, when Machiavelli gets to take Spain and Isabella comes out as Hawaii or some horse*hit like that.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

Of course there would. The point here is that they can sell you the same Civlet, twice. We all know there are Civs more popuolar than others. Being able to sell Great Britain, twice, is a big upside over having to sell you a Civ like Hawaii (or similar).

Breaking a Civilization into third not only makes the Civlet cheaper to make, it also enables you to sell popular Civlets more than once

Except they aren't selling the same Civilizations twice. Han, Ming & Qing are not the same. They aren't breaking any into a third. Han, Ming & Qing does not equal China from VI.

If Han, Ming & Qing all shared the same 1 unit and 1 infrastructure from Civ VIs China then I could understand calling them a third of a Civilization. But seeing as they don't, I don't know how you can say that fairly.

Between Han, Ming & Qing, they have: a unique ranged unit, 2 unique infantry units, 2 unique tile improvements, unique Great People, 2 unique merchants, a unique Quarter with 2 unique buildings, 3 unique Civic trees (11 total unique Civics) and 10 unique traditions.
That doesn't sound like 1 unique ranged unit & 1 unique tile improvement which Civ VIs China has split between 3 to me.

It's fine if you'd rather play a single, less unique and more surface level Civilization for a whole game than 3 more unique Civilizations throughout a whole game. That doesn't make them "a third".

 

[socratic]

The civ-olution over the ages/chapters is not a bad gameplay decision. It does make the game richer and arguably also justifies a higher price via add-on content. The main issue is that the studio went about it the wrong way. They have simply not studied the player base well enough. They could have achieved the same game economics and mechanics with letting player decide on a meta civ upfront (aka "China", "America," or "Germanic") and then easing the player in with a starting combination like "Han" or "Gaul". Depending on the gameplay decision and narrative events the player engages in, this could have evolved into "Tang", "Song", "Ming" or "Norman", "Frank", etc. You get the sense of it. I think in a CIV8 that would be the most reasonable workaround. The current system, which I don't hate, still has "humankind" vibes; for instance, when Machiavelli gets to take Spain and Isabella comes out as Hawaii or some horse*hit like that.

Definitely feel like the leaders were made to be the "meta civ". Some of their abilities have less to do with the leader themselves and more the civilization their associated with (Augustus, Confucius, Isabella come to mind). I don't think it works too well (mainly because the Leader choice is so odd and not always representative of a civ, but thats another conversation entirely), but it's important to point out.

 

[tman2000]

That's fine, but I brought up the 50/50 split as a counter to the supposed "near universal" dislike of the game. In no way is 50/50 "near universal".

It's semantics that miss the point.

By the time you get to reviews, you've already filtered out, by marketing, all the people who are not interested in the product. The people left are people who have a rough idea of what the game is and are aware of its features. If half of them don't like the game, it means the game is failing to appeal to the audience which already prefers that game.

It means that the dislike isn't a matter of preference, but rather the game fails to deliver on its own promises. Ergo, it's a bad game. It's not "oh some people like it and some don't." It's, "Among people who wanted this specific game, half of them didn't like it, so it's just bad."

 

[tman2000]

Except they aren't selling the same Civilizations twice. Han, Ming & Qing are not the same. They aren't breaking any into a third. Han, Ming & Qing does not equal China from VI.

If Han, Ming & Qing all shared the same 1 unit and 1 infrastructure from Civ VIs China then I could understand calling them a third of a Civilization. But seeing as they don't, I don't know how you can say that fairly.

Between Han, Ming & Qing, they have: a unique ranged unit, 2 unique infantry units, 2 unique tile improvements, unique Great People, 2 unique merchants, a unique Quarter with 2 unique buildings, 3 unique Civic trees (11 total unique Civics) and 10 unique traditions.
That doesn't sound like 1 unique ranged unit & 1 unique tile improvement which Civ VIs China has split between 3 to me.

It's fine if you'd rather play a single, less unique and more surface level Civilization for a whole game than 3 more unique Civilizations throughout a whole game. That doesn't make them "a third".

We are all aware of this. We know this.

You're ignoring the bigger picture, which has been plainly stated.

We're not comparing the content density of a purchaseable civlet. We're comparing the scope of how that civlet will play compared to the preferred experience of playing a civ across the full breadth of history. No matter how content dense these civlets are, they'll only ever deliver a shorter than desired experience due to the structure of the game.

We don't care how hard devs worked to stuff content into purchaseable DLC commodities. We care that the overall game precludes the sort of experience most people are looking for.

 

[tman2000]

You're talking like you know, when you don't. You don't know if there is "a small population of very active users who consistently downvote everything negative". You don't know that there is a large majority of users who dislike VII who only occasionally post or comment.

I do know, because of qualitative data. When a post is downvoted, people often also comment on it.

If their comment is, "I don't like your opinion because I disagree with your analysis, here's why," then that's proof of a natural disagreement.

If the comment is, "I wish you all game haters would just leave this sub for good, they're not changing the game, get over it," with zero substantive discussion of whatever your comment was, that's proof of systematic downvoting.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Except they aren't selling the same Civilizations twice. Han, Ming & Qing are not the same. They aren't breaking any into a third. Han, Ming & Qing does not equal China from VI.

If Han, Ming & Qing all shared the same 1 unit and 1 infrastructure from Civ VIs China then I could understand calling them a third of a Civilization. But seeing as they don't, I don't know how you can say that fairly.

Between Han, Ming & Qing, they have: a unique ranged unit, 2 unique infantry units, 2 unique tile improvements, unique Great People, 2 unique merchants, a unique Quarter with 2 unique buildings, 3 unique Civic trees (11 total unique Civics) and 10 unique traditions.
That doesn't sound like 1 unique ranged unit & 1 unique tile improvement which Civ VIs China has split between 3 to me.

It's fine if you'd rather play a single, less unique and more surface level Civilization for a whole game than 3 more unique Civilizations throughout a whole game. That doesn't make them "a third".

Neither is less than or more than inherently. You're right to say there's more content associated (even though theres no reason they couldn't add equivalent to 3 civlets of content to an old style civilization).

It isn't right though to equate them either. They are definitionally different. A civilization in games 1-6 was a consistent concept, with steadily increasing flavour variations. A civlet in Civ VII is a third of that conceptual unit, with greatly expanded flavour variations. They are both still the "playable characters" of this game, but it is not right to say they are equivalent to one another.

This is why I have a problem with the way the have advertised the game. Personally I think Firaxis / 2K have actively lied when they say they launched with the most Civilizations. It's not reasonable to describe the civlets they've launched with as Civilizations and compare them 1:1 with old style Civilizations.

 

[Crashdummy]

The civ-olution over the ages/chapters is not a bad gameplay decision. It does make the game richer and arguably also justifies a higher price via add-on content. The main issue is that the studio went about it the wrong way. They have simply not studied the player base well enough. They could have achieved the same game economics and mechanics with letting player decide on a meta civ upfront (aka "China", "America," or "Germanic") and then easing the player in with a starting combination like "Han" or "Gaul". Depending on the gameplay decision and narrative events the player engages in, this could have evolved into "Tang", "Song", "Ming" or "Norman", "Frank", etc. You get the sense of it. I think in a CIV8 that would be the most reasonable workaround. The current system, which I don't hate, still has "humankind" vibes; for instance, when Machiavelli gets to take Spain and Isabella comes out as Hawaii or some horse*hit like that.

If Civ 8 has any kind of civ switching or age transitions, it will be the last Civilization game of the franchise. Its one thinkg making a huge mistake in 1 game, its another repeating it on the next one

No civ switching mechanic will work in the Civilization franchise, because the whole franchise was based upon you picking and keeping a single Civ since stone age to space one

Civ 8 should have the slogan "Back to Roots" and go back to no civ switching and no age transitions

The "civ" switching mechanics should be refined and try to make it work in other franchises

 

[Crashdummy]

Except they aren't selling the same Civilizations twice. Han, Ming & Qing are not the same. They aren't breaking any into a third. Han, Ming & Qing does not equal China from VI.

If Han, Ming & Qing all shared the same 1 unit and 1 infrastructure from Civ VIs China then I could understand calling them a third of a Civilization. But seeing as they don't, I don't know how you can say that fairly.

Between Han, Ming & Qing, they have: a unique ranged unit, 2 unique infantry units, 2 unique tile improvements, unique Great People, 2 unique merchants, a unique Quarter with 2 unique buildings, 3 unique Civic trees (11 total unique Civics) and 10 unique traditions.
That doesn't sound like 1 unique ranged unit & 1 unique tile improvement which Civ VIs China has split between 3 to me.

It's fine if you'd rather play a single, less unique and more surface level Civilization for a whole game than 3 more unique Civilizations throughout a whole game. That doesn't make them "a third".

Of course they are not the same Civ, but they share the same "name" in terms of Marketing. In previous games, you could only sell 1 China Civ. Now you can sell n China Civlets, that you can market as China Civlets

Same with Great Britain, France, etc (if anyone thinks we are not going to have at minimim 1 exploration and modern GB and France, you are delusional)

That is where breaking Civs into Civlets shine for them

 

[McSpank01]

If Civ 8 has any kind of civ switching or age transitions, it will be the last Civilization game of the franchise. Its one thinkg making a huge mistake in 1 game, its another repeating it on the next one

No civ switching mechanic will work in the Civilization franchise, because the whole franchise was based upon you picking and keeping a single Civ since stone age to space one

Civ 8 should have the slogan "Back to Roots" and go back to no civ switching and no age transitions

The "civ" switching mechanics should be refined and try to make it work in other franchises

Dude, you just need to stop with this now. Civ switching is so low down the list of problems with the game. I know it’s your bugbear but it’s not for very many other people

 

[Siptah]

But isn‘t it per se super cool to not have these several century/millennia amalgamations and instead civlets that are at least somewhat focused on a certain period? Having Normans, English, British all in one game seems very, very desirable to me. The downside is just the price for getting them all, and for sure not the content. But that‘s up to each individual whether they consider the respective civ worth their money (and their time, more importantly).

 

[Crashdummy]

Dude, you just need to stop with this now. Civ switching is so low down the list of problems with the game. I know it’s your bugbear but it’s not for very many other people

It is for a lot of the peoiple that are NOT playing the game

I know people that like the game and are playing it have other priorities, but for those that left/never bought it? Its quite high in the list

 

[Crashdummy]

But isn‘t it per se super cool to not have these several century/millennia amalgamations and instead civlets that are at least somewhat focused on a certain period? Having Normans, English, British all in one game seems very, very desirable to me. The downside is just the price for getting them all, and for sure not the content. But that‘s up to each individual whether they consider the respective civ worth their money (and their time, more importantly).

Maybe in another franchise that starts from 0 (it hasnt worked yet, but who knows). Not in a franchise that for over 30 years has been about taking a single Civ from zero to space

 

[Leucarum]

I don't mind all three existing at once! And it's not new to have different stages of a Civ's journey in a single civ. Nobody batted an eyelid at Rome and Spain co-existing for example.

But I really miss being able to take Rome into space for example...

 

[Siptah]

There will always be people not playing the game. A whole lot of these. Millions. Billions actually. You can’t make a game that pleases every single one out there.

But people that play the game and spend money on it? It should be improved for them most or all. If the changes broaden the audience a bit, that’s for sure welcomed by everybody. If smaller changes allow more players, sure. But priority should be to improve the game as is, and not try to invent a new one. The fundamentals for civ 7 have incredible potential. If someone doesn‘t like these, the game is probably not for them. Accepting this might be hard, when you‘ve been following the franchise for 20+ years, but millions of people have been through that with many kinds of media. Looking in the mirror, realizing the reality of life, and moving on can be healthy. Getting yourself unhappy and negatively excited about a computer game for extended period of time is in unhealthy and - in my opinion - a really dumb way to spend time if there are unlimited other possibilities.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

But isn‘t it per se super cool to not have these several century/millennia amalgamations and instead civlets that are at least somewhat focused on a certain period? Having Normans, English, British all in one game seems very, very desirable to me. The downside is just the price for getting them all, and for sure not the content. But that‘s up to each individual whether they consider the respective civ worth their money (and their time, more importantly).

I'd be fine with it if I could pick any of them and have them all compete against one another and ancient Egypt and America at the same time. More Civilizations the merrier.

Civlets don't make me merry though. Swapping civlets or Civilizations makes me decidedly unmerry

 

[Siptah]

I don't mind all three existing at once! And it's not new to have different stages of a Civ's journey in a single civ.

But wouldn‘t selling two Anglo civs at the same time be incredibly toxic DLC strategy

 

[Crashdummy]

There will always be people not playing the game. A whole lot of these. Millions. Billions actually. You can’t make a game that pleases every single one out there.

But people that play the game and spend money on it? It should be improved for them most or all. If the changes broaden the audience a bit, that’s for sure welcomed by everybody. If smaller changes allow more players, sure. But priority should be to improve the game as is, and not try to invent a new one. The fundamentals for civ 7 have incredible potential. If someone doesn‘t like these, the game is probably not for them. Accepting this might be hard, when you‘ve been following the franchise for 20+ years, but millions of people have been through that with many kinds of media. Looking in the mirror, realizing the reality of life, and moving on can be healthy. Getting yourself unhappy and negatively excited about a computer game for extended period of time is in unhealthy and - in my opinion - a really dumb way to spend time if there are unlimited other possibilities.

I dont know if the current amoutn of players are enough to sustain a high cost development game like Civilization, and ignoring part of your long lasting loyal playerbase during a long development cycle like the Civilization games has risk losing that loyal playerbase. That's why i think the sooner they can fix the game so that you cant include such playerbase into your game is a better approach than just ignoring them and doubling down on the mistakes that led you to push them away

In any way, its not my decision

 

[Kev1916]

We are all aware of this. We know this.

You're ignoring the bigger picture, which has been plainly stated.

We're not comparing the content density of a purchaseable civlet. We're comparing the scope of how that civlet will play compared to the preferred experience of playing a civ across the full breadth of history. No matter how content dense these civlets are, they'll only ever deliver a shorter than desired experience due to the structure of the game.

We don't care how hard devs worked to stuff content into purchaseable DLC commodities. We care that the overall game precludes the sort of experience most people are looking for.

I think the dude is well aware , Im going put the ted on Ignore.

Punting out Mini Civlet's At $6 a throw to play for one period in a mini game is just a con

 

[Kev1916]

If Civ 8 has any kind of civ switching or age transitions, it will be the last Civilization game of the franchise. Its one thinkg making a huge mistake in 1 game, its another repeating it on the next one

No civ switching mechanic will work in the Civilization franchise, because the whole franchise was based upon you picking and keeping a single Civ since stone age to space one

Civ 8 should have the slogan "Back to Roots" and go back to no civ switching and no age transitions

The "civ" switching mechanics should be refined and try to make it work in other franchises

Civ 8 will 100% not include switching