Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Lazy sweeper]

The fundamentals for civ 7 have incredible potential. If someone doesn‘t like these, the game is probably not for them.

Also valid for devs?
If so who decides whose ideas have the priority?
Acting on solid grounds is the result of logical, tangible, repeatable work.

They did all the opposite.
The MAP is the most solid argument. The GROUND.
There is nothing more solid than that.
And it has been completely neglected from years now.
Civ 6 Map looked awful, a cartoonish insult.
There is no justification for the disrespect for the PC Master race- CIV 6 IS A CONSOLE GAME- not a PC Game.

And Civ V had a LOT of problems to solve itself.
But at least with Vox Populi has become a slightly playable PC game.
Civ 4 is still GOAT in the 3D era.

Civ 7 is for devs WHO cares about making PC games.
They are wasting time and resources keeping the strategy of try to unify and force PC players to play a console, simplified, almost
a mobile SCAM game worth of the best PLAYSTORE titles available for Android.

But if they do keep pursuing the easy CA$H instead of making a game for PC gamers, they will obtain none.
And lost the talented devs, who are we even talking to?

The Art designer?

 

[Bug Repellent]

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.

This is not how you run a business whose most valuable assets are its IP and the loyal fanbase. The #1 job for any new installment of Civ is to retain the franchise's player base. Broadening your audience is great, but it is difficult to do properly. Look at Marvel and Star Wars. Disney bought these two franchises with the goal of broadening their male dominated core audience. Worthy goal, but they went about it the wrong way when they introduced girl bosses that were poorly received both by men and women. Now, both franchises are in trouble and Disney has started talking about a shift in its development strategy aimed at bringing back the lost young male audience.

Civ7 currently has 7k average concurrent players, whereas Civ5 and Civ6 have 13.2k and 32k, respectively, for a total of 45.2k. Losing by such large margins to its two previous installments is a disaster for Civ7, no matter how much the people playing Civ7 enjoy the game. I guarantee you, when the devs at Firaxis talk with their bean counters, words like "bonuses" and "raises" do not come into the conversation.

 

[aelf]

they thought they knew their audience and knew better than someone who actually knew his audience and product development.

Sorry, who's this "someone"?

 

[Xur]

There are many examples of trying to "broaden the audience" or get a "modern audience" that fails. Defending it by "it's not for you" is also pretty standard for those failures and something the company can't use as an excuse. Another thing that grinds my gears, is white knights telling me to "just play the older games then". Does that make Firaxis (new) money or interest me? I like the franchise and hate to see it fail like this. There are other games than the civ franchise, if Firaxis cant or wont deliver.

The biggest problem is Firaxis themselves. They never engage with the community. I don't know why they bother hiring a community team - they created a wall between themselves and the community. No wonder they are clueless about what people want and dont want.

 

[kotpeter]

Also valid for devs?
If so who decides whose ideas have the priority?
Acting on solid grounds is the result of logical, tangible, repeatable work.

They did all the opposite.
The MAP is the most solid argument. The GROUND.
There is nothing more solid than that.
And it has been completely neglected from years now.
Civ 6 Map looked awful, a cartoonish insult.
There is no justification for the disrespect for the PC Master race- CIV 6 IS A CONSOLE GAME- not a PC Game.

And Civ V had a LOT of problems to solve itself.
But at least with Vox Populi has become a slightly playable PC game.
Civ 4 is still GOAT in the 3D era.

Civ 7 is for devs WHO cares about making PC games.
They are wasting time and resources keeping the strategy of try to unify and force PC players to play a console, simplified, almost
a mobile SCAM game worth of the best PLAYSTORE titles available for Android.

But if they do keep pursuing the easy CA$H instead of making a game for PC gamers, they will obtain none.
And lost the talented devs, who are we even talking to?

The Art designer?

Civ 6 console versions often crash, and its Android version is pretty unstable and unsupported. I've heard it runs better on iPad though. But the primary platform is PC, not console.

Consoles like PS5 and Xbox Series X have enough power to run 4X games with decent graphics and performance. Even Nintendo Switch 2 runs Civ 7, and I heard it's ok.

The UI problems of Civ 7 may be temporary if devs eventually fix them. But the reach of the new installment is what'll bring new players to the franchise, which is a must for its long-term success.

I completely understand people who want the game to be optimized for their comfort alone and their pain points addressed above all else, but I can't sympathize them.

This is not how you run a business whose most valuable assets are its IP and the loyal fanbase. The #1 job for any new installment of Civ is to retain the franchise's player base.

With this logic we would never have received Civ 5 or Civ 6 with 1UPT, districts, and other innovative ideas. The #1 job of a new installment is to be an engaging, financially successful product that meets customers' needs, the product which the devs can make and are willing to support. Civ 5 was a failure before its expansions. Civ 6 was successful from the beginning, but with gathering storm it reached a whole new level, opening gates to prolonged game support and multiple additional DLCs.

Civ 7 may follow the path of Civ 5 and become successful, or it may follow the path of BE and become unsupported a year after release. We'll have to vote with our wallets and see the result.

 

[Leucarum]

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

I mean they literally did have a "Rulers of England" pack for Civ6...

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

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

These two posts are almost back to back. Says a lot.

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.

Civ7 lost the majority of the loyal playerbase, which is an absolute, potentially franchise ending disaster

The last thing you want to do, if you want to keep having a Civ franchise, is doubling down on that

Holy crap, if ever there was a moment for a nimble indie studio to steal the 4X Crown by pulling a Helldivers it is now.

Civ 6 console versions often crash, and its Android version is pretty unstable and unsupported. I've heard it runs better on iPad though. But the primary platform is PC, not console.

Consoles like PS5 and Xbox Series X have enough power to run 4X games with decent graphics and performance. Even Nintendo Switch 2 runs Civ 7, and I heard it's ok.

The UI problems of Civ 7 may be temporary if devs eventually fix them. But the reach of the new installment is what'll bring new players to the franchise, which is a must for its long-term success.

I completely understand people who want the game to be optimized for their comfort alone and their pain points addressed above all else, but I can't sympathize them.


With this logic we would never have received Civ 5 or Civ 6 with 1UPT, districts, and other innovative ideas. The #1 job of a new installment is to be an engaging, financially successful product that meets customers' needs, the product which the devs can make and are willing to support. Civ 5 was a failure before its expansions. Civ 6 was successful from the beginning, but with gathering storm it reached a whole new level, opening gates to prolonged game support and multiple additional DLCs.

Civ 7 may follow the path of Civ 5 and become successful, or it may follow the path of BE and become unsupported a year after release. We'll have to vote with our wallets and see the result.

Civ5 and 6 didn’t face plant like 7 did because they didn’t dumpster the core identity of the franchise

Civ6 definitly broadened it by really leaning into Engaging With The Map, which works WITH the narrative sandbox instead of against it. The biggest problem with 1UPT is not the concept, but the Sliding Tile Puzzle and overpowered ranger units problem.

 

[itix]

Civilization V was rushed (due to insufficient development time), but it was a commercial and critical success. Its player retention was better than Civ 7's.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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".

I'm not sure if China is the best civ to sell that opinion considering two of the three have a Great Wall unique improvement. India might have been a better example.

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)

Isn't that already the case with the Normans, taking the place of Exploration England and France? So, we were already there thanks to the first DLC.

I mean they literally did have a "Rulers of England" pack for Civ6...

And one was for Norway.
Thought to be fair he was my favorite out of those.

 

[kotpeter]

I'm not sure if China is the best civ to sell that opinion considering two of the three have a Great Wall unique improvement. India might have been a better example

I don't know if it's related, but in steam achievements Confucius victory stands out as the most completed achievement among all leaders. Last time I checked around 10% of players won as Confucius, while other leaders had 2-4%.

Edit: there are other popular leaders as well like Benjamin Franklin (8.2%), Augustus (7.9%), Isabella (7.3%) and Xerxes King of Kings (6.0%). The rest fall below 5%.

 

[Siptah]

China has the by far largest player base in civ 6, so DLCs with Chinese civs seem a good idea, marketing-wise. However, for civ 7, China has a smaller market share below 20% according to gamalytic iirc (which is no accurate value and should be considered with care). As many people like to play „their own“ civ and leader (whatever these are supposed to be), it‘s still no surprise that Confucius and Ben are the most played leaders, and were also chosen for getting a plushy alter ego.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

China has the by far largest player base in civ 6, so DLCs with Chinese civs seem a good idea, marketing-wise. However, for civ 7, China has a smaller market share below 20% according to gamalytic iirc (which is no accurate value and should be considered with care). As many people like to play „their own“ civ and leader (whatever these are supposed to be), it‘s still no surprise that Confucius and Ben are the most played leaders, and were also chosen for getting a plushy alter ego.

For the longest time I also thought that Trajan (Rome) was the most played in Civ 6 too.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's still the case with Ben as Rome>Normans>America being one of the most popular, besides Confucius and the three China civs.

 

[Siptah]

For the longest time I also thought that Trajan (Rome) was the most played in Civ 6 too.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's still the case with Ben as Rome>Normans>America being one of the most popular, besides Confucius and the three China civs.

I think Augusts is #3 in 7.

I would welcome if FXS would publish stats for how often civs are played in 7. I‘d be curious if most people also start with Rome, Greece, Han, and Egypt or if the OPness of Maya interfered.

 

[Crashdummy]

China has the by far largest player base in civ 6, so DLCs with Chinese civs seem a good idea, marketing-wise. However, for civ 7, China has a smaller market share below 20% according to gamalytic iirc (which is no accurate value and should be considered with care). As many people like to play „their own“ civ and leader (whatever these are supposed to be), it‘s still no surprise that Confucius and Ben are the most played leaders, and were also chosen for getting a plushy alter ego.

Civ 7 will obviously have a higher european playerbase, since the whole game was made with a very Eurocentric view

 

[King Flevance]

I think Augusts is #3 in 7.

I would welcome if FXS would publish stats for how often civs are played in 7. I‘d be curious if most people also start with Rome, Greece, Han, and Egypt or if the OPness of Maya interfered.

I always pick random leader and civ, and the game itself gives me Maya so often, I will often reroll if I get it.

 

[sonicmyst]

I am a bit offended by the term "civlet" as if that playable civilization is a minor thing. Only to be used to justify a certain hatred about civ switching.

I remember those days in Civ VI when people were asking to deblob India and China because India and China across ages were actually composed of different polities / dynasties.

Now we have it in Civ VII we are now reducing them to "civlets"?

Seems like there is no appreciation here.

 

[sonicmyst]

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

I think the only issue is the way these civs are priced. What I hoped is they should have made these DLC bundles of 3 civs at a cost of Civ VI civ DLC price, so probably people wont feel pissed.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think the only issue is the way these civs are priced. What I hoped is they should have made these DLC bundles of 3 civs at a cost of Civ VI civ DLC price, so probably people wont feel pissed.

The way pricing is now I'm expecting about $60, at minimum, for the first major expansion.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I am a bit offended by the term "civlet" as if that playable civilization is a minor thing. Only to be used to justify a certain hatred about civ switching.

I remember those days in Civ VI when people were asking to deblob India and China because India and China across ages were actually composed of different polities / dynasties.

Now we have it in Civ VII we are now reducing them to "civlets"?

Seems like there is no appreciation here.

It’s only playable for a third of the game. “Civlet” is pretty damn polite to be honest.

I’m more than a little offended by the blatant money grab AND insult to my intelligence by pretending Civ7 “launched with the most civs ever”

Or a DLC that essentially has one and a third civs costing almost as much as a DLC with many civs used to for the previous tiitle

People wanted China and India “deblobbed” because those regions had more actual potential civs that could be modelled.

And splitting then into 1/3 shards does not count

 

[King Flevance]

"Civlet" is not a term used in a way that is culturally insensitive, it is being used in a way to showcase corporate greed or even just this new mechanic. I think this is rather apparent. To spin it to be something culturally insensitive is either a rather large misunderstanding or devious passive aggression. Every campaign game is now made of 3 civs, not just 1. (Or 1 whole civ for the whole game) No more is the option to play all 3 ages with 1 civ. Instead, now you must play with 3 smaller "civlets". That is the context of the term meant to discuss a dissection of a whole civ (game mechanic) into 3 civlets (new game mechanic).

The term is obviously mocking Firaxis for blatantly charging more for these civs, despite them playing a lesser role each game.