Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[UWHabs]

I honestly think some people dont want to see the reality because they are too involved in a sentimental way. They WANT Civ 7 to be a huge success and cant accept that it was the opposite

I want it to succeed, because I worry that if it is not, we might not see a civ 8, or worry about the long term stability of the franchise.

I mean, as much as the whole "pack it up, start on civ 8" crowd wants that to happen, frankly, that's not really how development in the industry would work. Maybe the commitments are not contractual, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people bought 7 expecting some level of continued support and development, some levels of expansions and updates. Shutting it up early and moving on to 8 is going to cause a lot of resentment by a lot of folks, and basically you run the serious chance of alienating all the folks who actually enjoy 7, while trying to appease the people who didn't give it a chance. Maybe it would pay off in the end, but it's a very tough play. Everyone who hated 7 or didn't give it a try will wait when 8 is announced to see how it hits, and those that liked 7 in a lot of cases might not rush out to see if 8 ends up breaking the stuff they liked from 8. You basically have to hit a perfect release, otherwise you basically lose all your audience.

Sure, maybe you see some of the writing, and you maybe don't plan on having 3 expansions and 14 leader passes for the version. But I also think casting off the game as un-salvageable is also being a bit drastic too. I don't think 7 is that far off from where 5 was at the same stage.

C

Thread 'Is Civilization V the worst game of the series?'

Feb 17, 2011

Hello ya all been away for quite a while but with Civ 5 being the biggest disappointement ever I took some time off of the forums but I am now back and want to share some thoughts and know why you all think Civ 5 was a great failure.

For me the main reason was the overhype CIV 5 got that made everyone not like it. We were promised CIV 5 but instead we recieved CIV REV2. This was a slap in the face of the old fans the fact they simplified the game so much it´s not enjoyable.

So I wanna hear youre thoughts?

• Caeserportugal
• Replies: 98
• Forum: Civ5 - General Discussions

Thread 'Do you think that the expansion will really improve this game?'

Feb 9, 2011

Vote and discuss. I personally believe that an expansion works only if the game beneath it is good to begin with, IE as BTS was for Civ 4. In case of Civ 5, the fundamentals need to be fixed before anything else...

• lordsurya08
• Replies: 78
• Forum: Civ5 - General Discussions

or you can probably flip to any of the 150+ pages in the civ 5 rants thread to see a lot of complaints: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civilization-5-rants-thread.401228/

Now, is 7 in a worse place than 5 was? Yeah, probably. 5 even with all the complaints on the forums still kept a better public place. The reviews of 5 weren't nearly the same place they are with 7. There was plenty of skepticism that expansions for 5 would be able to fix the problems.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The things that held back V are fixeable

The main thing making 7 a flop probably isn’t

 

[Siptah]

The things that held back V are fixeable

The main thing making 7 a flop probably isn’t

I agree, but probably not in the way you think: The gameplay problems are fixable with enough time, money, and energy. In contrast, the crowd sentiment towards the game is very hard to fix, if ever.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I agree, but probably not in the way you think: The gameplay problems are fixable with enough time, money, and energy. In contrast, the crowd sentiment towards the game is very hard to fix, if ever.

Crowd dynamic is really hard to understand and even harder to predict. Star Wars show Acolyte was the most hated Star Wars content, but just a year after it became the one where fans request sequel the most.

 

[Gorbles]

The things that held back V are fixeable

The main thing making 7 a flop probably isn’t

The benefit of hindsight is always a fun thing.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Of maybe, just maybe, people dislike a thing because they dislike it

No, of course not

Clearly it’s the children who are wrong.

 

[itix]

Crowd dynamic is really hard to understand and even harder to predict. Star Wars show Acolyte was the most hated Star Wars content, but just a year after it became the one where fans request sequel the most.

It was cancelled because it had too low viewership vs production costs.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It was cancelled because it had too low viewership vs production costs.

Yes, but I was speaking about public opinion, not the cancellation itself. But yes, they had pretty bad budgeting.

 

[GeneralZift]

I don't blame them for reacting the way they did for base Civ5. Although like many others have said, the issues are far more fixable on a surface level.

Some of the issues with Civ7 involve deep core mechanics. Like for example let's say your issue with the game is continuity between the ages.
Well the ages system is here to stay, that's 100%.
And continuity is a complex subject.

They have to fix it while still retaining the fact that things change. They somehow have to go into your brain to make you accept the Civ switch and the jump in time.

On the other hand, the complaints about Civ5 were, for example, about 1UPT. Well, they made simple changes like being able to stack Civilians and Military units.
They could have, in theory, implemented Civ6's corps/armies system for example.
They didn't, but the point is there exists many solutions, which are non-obtrusive and fits the existing design.

I think release Civ5 was also pretty linear or boring. Well they made enhancements to religion, national wonders, ideology, world Congress.
So they made a boring game more interesting.

At the end of the day that game was plagued with problems of a different nature to the problems that Civ7 has.
To give an analogy, Civ5 would be like a racing game launching without much variety. They then add new racers and cars, make the racing more interesting and add new tracks.
Civ7 would be a racing game that comes with a new mechanic that hinders the gameplay for some. For example, having to refuel 3 times in a match.
Well, now trying to fix this issue is not the same as trying to fix the other issue, because this issue is of a different nature. It's inherent to the design.

 

[Nikolai II]

They have to fix it while still retaining the fact that things change. They somehow have to go into your brain to make you accept the Civ switch and the jump in time.

The biggest changes are changing civ name/identity, and unit placement, right? I'd say so. Both seems to be something you could change to be less radical changes. In fact, the second is already fixed in one of the possible settings.

 

[Gorbles]

Of maybe, just maybe, people dislike a thing because they dislike it

No, of course not

Clearly it’s the children who are wrong.

The people who disliked CiV disliked it because they disliked it at the time. Some still dislike it now.

No need to undercut that valid sentiment just because you feel the game improved over time.

 

[queenpea]

The people who disliked CiV disliked it because they disliked it at the time. Some still dislike it now.

No need to undercut that valid sentiment just because you feel the game improved over time.

Of maybe, just maybe, people dislike a thing because they dislike it

No, of course not

Clearly it’s the children who are wrong.

The way I interpret Siptah's post isn't that they are blaming players who don't like the game for not liking the game, but it's more to point out that it's hard to convince people in general to give a second chance to something they have already passed judgement on.

Maybe I am way off base! Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[GeneralZift]

The biggest changes are changing civ name/identity, and unit placement, right? I'd say so. Both seems to be something you could change to be less radical changes. In fact, the second is already fixed in one of the possible settings.

Well perhaps you are right, if you are, we will see it reflected in what the developers decide to do and the relevant impact thereafter.

But I do consider it a bit more complex. It's not just the name or identity, or the unit placement, but also the change in mechanics, change in bonuses, impact on narrative structure, and lack of fluidity which affects the gameplay.

And the point still stands that it is at the core of the gameplay. All the Civilizations and win conditions, legacy trees and leaders are designed around the Civ switch and era mechanics. So you can't turn it off easily, best you can hope for is those simple or aesthetic changes we talked about.

 

[Bug Repellent]

I mean, as much as the whole "pack it up, start on civ 8" crowd wants that to happen, frankly, that's not really how development in the industry would work. Maybe the commitments are not contractual, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people bought 7 expecting some level of continued support and development, some levels of expansions and updates.

TTWO does not have a fiduciary duty to its customers. Instead, they have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders. Civ7 is very likely losing money at the moment if they only sell 3.3k copies a week for a studio as big as Firaxis. Hence the layoffs. The last two weekends the game failed to reach 10k concurrent players on Steam and its average concurrent player base is down 4% during the last 30 days to a paltry 6,700 players. They released patch after patch and the player base and the review score are still dropping. Yes, they'll release an expansion at some point, ideally before the winter holidays, since that's when people have more free time to play the game. They need the expansion to be a hit with current players, but even MORE so with people that don't like the game. The first expansion has to be so enticing that people like me that didn't buy the game would jump in and buy both the base game and the expansion. This is a very, very tough task. Not impossible, but close.

I hope Firaxis has the wisdom to ignore those asking them to lean even more into the core mechanics of Civ7. If the first expansion has more age transitions, another civ switching, more artists and social activists leaders with 30 new minor civilizations that all provide the same gameplay and doesn't fix urban sprawl, map readability, strategic depth, classic mode... well, more layoffs will like follow, unfortunately. I admire Firaxis for trying something bold and different with Civ7. But it didn't work, so cutting their losses and moving on it the smart way to go. Again, some things you just can't fix.

 

[aelf]

I want it to succeed, because I worry that if it is not, we might not see a civ 8, or worry about the long term stability of the franchise.

I mean, as much as the whole "pack it up, start on civ 8" crowd wants that to happen, frankly, that's not really how development in the industry would work.

Unfortunately, you seem to assume here that much of the sentiment comes from a logical perspective. It isn't, but it's often mistaken or dressed up as such.

It comes down to the fact that how much one likes or dislikes a game, based on one's idea of what is fun or 'immersive', is ultimately subjective. That's why people keep going back to the question of the game's popularity, because it's the only way they can justify their preferences as anything other than subjective. And the foundational layer beneath that, which people also keep returning to, is the fact that the game, as a commercial product, needs to sell well and therefore needs to appeal to enough people.

Quite early on, I've noted that there's a certain kind of irony in people wishing that the game had been more focus group'ed, which is usually what people don't want for a piece of entertainment media. I feel like on one level, there might be projection going on - assuming that what one wants is what most people want, so if everyone else likes it, one would like it too. On another level, it's probably simply a convenient train of thought since they now know that what they want seems somewhat aligned with what the majority wants.

This mode of thinking doesn't engage whatsoever with the specifics of the game's production as a piece of media or, indeed, of art. This is where most of my disagreement with the popular opinion stems from. I think, for the good of the franchise, we shouldn't want the game to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and we should want Firaxis to innovate, even if the results can be uneven - at least at first.

Now, what muddies the waters is the capitalistic practice of companies releasing subpar products with the intention maybe of fixing them later. It might make it hard to differentiate between that and a genuine attempt by Firaxis to grapple with the challenge of innovating the franchise. And that's why it might be good to make distinction between what the publisher wants and what the studio wants, and railing at the game designers is probably not the way to critique the game as a work that isn't just designed to be sold to as many people as possible.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The biggest changes are changing civ name/identity, and unit placement, right? I'd say so. Both seems to be something you could change to be less radical changes. In fact, the second is already fixed in one of the possible settings.

It’s the developer fiat era reset and civ renaming, which are kinda intertwined.

Staying the same civ but getting arbitrarily reset for no reason would be even worse.

The way I interpret Siptah's post isn't that they are blaming players who don't like the game for not liking the game, but it's more to point out that it's hard to convince people in general to give a second chance to something they have already passed judgement on.

Maybe I am way off base! Wouldn't be the first time.

Actually it’s not. Hey remember that thing you you disliked in a series that overall you liked? We got rid of it.

Unfortunately, you seem to assume here that much of the sentiment comes from a logical perspective. It isn't, but it's often mistaken or dressed up as such.

It comes down to the fact that how much one likes or dislikes a game, based on one's idea of what is fun or 'immersive', is ultimately subjective. That's why people keep going back to the question of the game's popularity, because it's the only way they can justify their preferences as anything other than subjective. And the foundational layer beneath that, which people also keep returning to, is the fact that the game, as a commercial product, needs to sell well and therefore needs to appeal to enough people.

Quite early on, I've noted that there's a certain kind of irony in people wishing that the game had been more focus group'ed, which is usually what people don't want for a piece of entertainment media. I feel like on one level, there might be projection going on - assuming that what one wants is what most people want, so if everyone else likes it, one would like it too. On another level, it's probably simply a convenient train of thought since they now know that what they want seems somewhat aligned with what the majority wants.

This mode of thinking doesn't engage whatsoever with the specifics of the game's production as a piece of media or, indeed, of art. This is where most of my disagreement with the popular opinion stems from. I think, for the good of the franchise, we shouldn't want the game to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and we should want Firaxis to innovate, even if the results can be uneven - at least at first.

Now, what muddies the waters is the capitalistic practice of companies releasing subpar products with the intention maybe of fixing them later. It might make it hard to differentiate between that and a genuine attempt by Firaxis to grapple with the challenge of innovating the franchise. And that's why it might be good to make distinction between what the publisher wants and what the studio wants, and railing at the game designers is probably not the way to critique the game as a work that isn't just designed to be sold to as many people as possible.

Or maybe, just maybe, people dislike a thing because they dislike it.

 

[Kwami]

Actually it’s not. Hey remember that thing you you disliked in a series that overall you liked? We got rid of it.

Sure. All they need to do is completely design the game and get rid of what current players like. No big deal.

 

[stealth_nsk]

A lot of discussions here go in circles. There are several points of disagreement here.

First point is the game commercial results. Some people believe it's already a flow, some don't.

Arguments for flop are:

• Low simultaneous player number
• Low ratings

Counter-arguments are:

• Simultaneous player number has weak correlation even with active player number, not with commercial success
• Comparisons are often incorrect from data analysis point of view, i.e. people compare metric taking at the same time a game released that year with game released 9 years ago
• There are pieces of information about sales doing relatively well, like record presale number, or high activity around sales time
• All this is baseless speculation if we don't see the whole economics of the game and plans

Second point is often mixed with the previous one, but is totally different and is about player perception of the game. We all see Steam reviews and could agree that the game has not the best reception, compared to Civ6 at least. But from where we have 2 general directions again:

First group of people sees the reason for negative reviews in age transition and civilization switching, seeing Civ7 as either irredeemable or requiring the "classic mode" to be saved.

Second point out that the majority of negative reviews complain about bugs, UI and price, so they mostly blame unfinished state and "hate train" - both things are totally changeable.


So, while I'm in one of those camps, I wanted to say that we already spelled our arguments in details multiple times and we don't add anything here. So, claiming that the other side "don't see the truth" and the like is pretty pointless. Yes, all people have confirmation bias (if you like the game you want it to be successful and see all data in this light and the other way around), but if we look at the other side argumentation, it's easy to see their points.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I want it to succeed, because I worry that if it is not, we might not see a civ 8, or worry about the long term stability of the franchise.

I mean, as much as the whole "pack it up, start on civ 8" crowd wants that to happen, frankly, that's not really how development in the industry would work. Maybe the commitments are not contractual, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people bought 7 expecting some level of continued support and development, some levels of expansions and updates. Shutting it up early and moving on to 8 is going to cause a lot of resentment by a lot of folks, and basically you run the serious chance of alienating all the folks who actually enjoy 7, while trying to appease the people who didn't give it a chance. Maybe it would pay off in the end, but it's a very tough play. Everyone who hated 7 or didn't give it a try will wait when 8 is announced to see how it hits, and those that liked 7 in a lot of cases might not rush out to see if 8 ends up breaking the stuff they liked from 8. You basically have to hit a perfect release, otherwise you basically lose all your audience.

Sure, maybe you see some of the writing, and you maybe don't plan on having 3 expansions and 14 leader passes for the version. But I also think casting off the game as un-salvageable is also being a bit drastic too. I don't think 7 is that far off from where 5 was at the same stage.

C

Thread 'Is Civilization V the worst game of the series?'

Feb 17, 2011

Hello ya all been away for quite a while but with Civ 5 being the biggest disappointement ever I took some time off of the forums but I am now back and want to share some thoughts and know why you all think Civ 5 was a great failure.

For me the main reason was the overhype CIV 5 got that made everyone not like it. We were promised CIV 5 but instead we recieved CIV REV2. This was a slap in the face of the old fans the fact they simplified the game so much it´s not enjoyable.

So I wanna hear youre thoughts?

• Caeserportugal
• Replies: 98
• Forum: Civ5 - General Discussions

Thread 'Do you think that the expansion will really improve this game?'

Feb 9, 2011

Vote and discuss. I personally believe that an expansion works only if the game beneath it is good to begin with, IE as BTS was for Civ 4. In case of Civ 5, the fundamentals need to be fixed before anything else...

• lordsurya08
• Replies: 78
• Forum: Civ5 - General Discussions

or you can probably flip to any of the 150+ pages in the civ 5 rants thread to see a lot of complaints: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civilization-5-rants-thread.401228/

Now, is 7 in a worse place than 5 was? Yeah, probably. 5 even with all the complaints on the forums still kept a better public place. The reviews of 5 weren't nearly the same place they are with 7. There was plenty of skepticism that expansions for 5 would be able to fix the problems.

I remember way back before people were hating on Civ 5, Civ 3 was considered the worst in the franchise for introducing irreparable changes from previous Civ games and for having a bad looking UI. Yet it was one of the most foundational Civ games, introducing culture, borders, civ/leader uniques, and strategic + luxury resources. And if you search on these forums, you can absolutely find people who hated Civ 2, called it childish while Civ 1 was supposedly serious, and considered it franchise-destroying for things like units having hit points now.

Fact is, some people will just hate on a new game when it comes out purely because it changed something. Sometimes those people will grow to like the new changes as they get used to them, sometimes they won't. You can't please everyone, that's life. But at the core of Civilization's identity has been its constant iterating and changing over the entire history of the franchise, and luckily I think the developers know that and are taking that into consideration when they decide how to move forward with Civ 7.

 

[Kev1916]

Fact is, some people will just hate on a new game when it comes out purely because it changed something. Sometimes those people will grow to like the new changes as they get used to them, sometimes they won't. You can't please everyone, that's life. But at the core of Civilization's identity has been its constant iterating and changing over the entire history of the franchise, and luckily I think the developers know that and are taking that into consideration when they decide how to move forward with Civ 7.

Fact's are most people who hate "something" will not even buy the new game ....

For Civ Vii one of it's many problems is many of the people who bought the game actually "hate" it .
Yea sadly I really doubt many of developers took that into consideration when they lost their jobs