Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[stealth_nsk]

just abandoning the game and moving on to something else is a no go imo. Their reputation as a studio would never be the same after that, at least for me. They need to make it work for as many players as possible. If after that it still does not make sense financially to keep churning expansions then fine, but finish the game with having mostly positive reviews, don't bury it under the carpet.

I honestly don't see how expansions could be unreasonable financially. Expansions and (especially) DLCs are the things which actually make money for games with that business model. And Civ7 already sold millions of units (wild guess is 3-4 across all platforms by now), so expansions should at least pay for themselves even if the game as a whole will end up not being financially successful.

 

[aieeegrunt]

O

I honestly don't see how expansions could be unreasonable financially. Expansions and (especially) DLCs are the things which actually make money for games with that business model. And Civ7 already sold millions of units (wild guess is 3-4 across all platforms by now), so expansions should at least pay for themselves even if the game as a whole will end up not being financially successful.

I could see at least one major expansion to test the waters so to speak

 

[Crashdummy]

This is the one I think I might try, with a massive, inexpensive DLC that creates at least 10 viable historical paths, for people who want to play "the same" civ from stone age to space age.

Those of us that want to play the same civ from stone age to space age do not consider these "historical paths" civlets to be the same Civ

Stop giving "solutions" that dont solve anything. Only people that already like civ switching consider that the game currently allows you to keep "India" and "China". It doesnt

We want to start as Rome and end as Rome, we want to start as China and end as China, we want to start as America and end as America

Adding these so called "historical paths" wont do anything to please those of us that dislike civ switching

The only solution is to make civ switching and age transitions optional, they need to stop wasting time and start making a Classic Mode ASAP

 

[stealth_nsk]

I could see at least one major expansion to test the waters so to speak

The problem with testing here is that 2 potential expansions are expected to be quite different - one about 4th age and one about overall game improvement. And those expansion could be received quite differently.

On a side note, while a lot of people speak negatively about 4th age expansion, I can't say that it would necessary perform worse than the other one. The notion about game being "unfinished" is also strong.

So, I expect 2 expansions released at some points of the game lifecycle.

Those of us that want to play the same civ from stone age to space age do not consider these "historical paths" civlets to be the same Civ

Stop giving "solutions" that dont solve anything. Only people that already like civ switching consider that the game currently allows you to keep "India" and "China". It doesnt

I think there are different categories of people among those who dislike civ changes. If it's not a solution for you, it doesn't mean it won't work for other people.

But I agree that being so niche, those things look like a waste of time.

 

[Siptah]

Stop giving "solutions" that dont solve anything. Only people that already like civ switching consider that the game currently allows you to keep "India" and "China". It doesnt

To use your language: don't put words in our mouth. Keep to your opinion, but don't tell me I consider any option in the current game "keeping India".

Adding these so called "historical paths" wont do anything to please those of us that dislike civ switching

But it might please enough people to make the difference between a game that ends in 2 years or in 7 years. And that's the important point.

 

[Nikolai II]

Moderator Action: Please keep the discussion civil.

 

[Leucarum]

In another thread, @Siptah had an interesting proposal. What if you could rename your new Civilization? You start as Roman, in the exploration, pick another civilization but keep the original name or rename it to anything you want.

There is no need to even start as Roman but call it anything you want.

It's hard to see that as anything bit a cosmetic lick of paint...

 

[Crashdummy]

To use your language: don't put words in our mouth. Keep to your opinion, but don't tell me I consider any option in the current game "keeping India".


But it might please enough people to make the difference between a game that ends in 2 years or in 7 years. And that's the important point.

I am not putting words in your mouth. You already like civ switching and thats why you cant know what the people that dont like civ switching would consider a solution, that is my point. I am saying this in general and not to anyone in particular

There are many "solutions" that wont work given by people that dont consider civ switching a problem . Continuity option is Firaxis listening to people that already like age transitions about how to fix a problem that other people have, instead of listening to those that have the problem in the first place. And because of that, it was a failure. It wont make a difference just like Continuity option didnt make a difference

They need to listen to those that have the problem about how to solve it

 

[Siptah]

They need to listen to those that have the problem about how to solve it

Or ignore these that have only maximum demand that clashes with the game's vision and listen to the people that a) like the game or b) can be convinced to like to game with the right changes that don't include throwing out the whole game as is. We won't get together there, and as the past months have shown, we won't even have a discussion about that.

 

[Crashdummy]

Or ignore these that have only maximum demand that clashes with the game's vision and listen to the people that a) like the game or b) can be convinced to like to game with the right changes that don't include throwing out the whole game as is. We won't get together there, and as the past months have shown, we won't even have a discussion about that.

Sure, that is an option but that is what they have been doing the last 6 months, it isnt working. I think Firaxis is wasting time that could be valuable actually fixing the things that are broken

 

[Siptah]

Sure, that is an option but that is what they have been doing the last 6 months, [...]

I don't think so. The past months concentrated on people that like the game as is, more or less. So a) of my above post.

There is in my opinion a large(r) crowd to be convinced by making switching at age transition optional (group b), and use the Humankind model that allows to keep your civ. Which is far away from what you want (no modern civs in antiquity, eras persist), but also hasn't happened yet. I assume it is in the works in some form or the other, but it hasn't surfaced in these past months.

 

[Krikkit1]

It's hard to see that as anything bit a cosmetic lick of paint...

Cosmetics are important

Otherwise they could do away with civs altogether, and each age you just pick two attributes that will determine your bonuses for that age. (which would give 15 "civs" each age more than they have now)... or you can stay with the same bonuses for all 3 ages.

Otherwise people wouldn't be upset there wasn't city renaming.

Cosmetics won't be enough for some people, but for others it will because that is what they want.

That "Roman" space ship to AC in previous games had very little "Roman" about it that wasn't cosmetics.

 

[Crashdummy]

I don't think so. The past months concentrated on people that like the game as is, more or less. So a) of my above post.

There is in my opinion a large(r) crowd to be convinced by making switching at age transition optional (group b), and use the Humankind model that allows to keep your civ. Which is far away from what you want (no modern civs in antiquity, eras persist), but also hasn't happened yet. I assume it is in the works in some form or the other, but it hasn't surfaced in these past months.

Yeah i think that would be insufficient and a waste of resources, so i hope they dont waste time on it, but if they do, we shall see if it has an impact

I dont think they have focused only on people that like the game, i think Continuity option was an attempt to get people that didnt like it, but maybe we disagree on that too

 

[Gorbles]

The age transition touches nothing. My units don’t magically teleport in the middle of a war. My navy is not suddenly relocated to the middle of a lake. Cites don’t get changed or degraded. My people don’t transmogrify into a completely different culture.

That reduces the break to a loading screen. I mean that’s not a big deal

This is why I said: "folks who think transitions are completely immersion-breaking and need to be removed: I know your position already!"

If there's an aspect of transitions that you want to keep (beyond the loading screen), I genuinely apologise. I just can't see it.

 

[Leucarum]

Cosmetics are important

Otherwise they could do away with civs altogether, and each age you just pick two attributes that will determine your bonuses for that age. (which would give 15 "civs" each age more than they have now)... or you can stay with the same bonuses for all 3 ages.

Otherwise people wouldn't be upset there wasn't city renaming.

Cosmetics won't be enough for some people, but for others it will because that is what they want.

That "Roman" space ship to AC in previous games had very little "Roman" about it that wasn't cosmetics.

By cosmetic I meant that that it doesn't let you still play with the mechanics of the civ you are likely enioying.

Most Civ7 civ abilities/units can be ported forward to future eras with a bit of scaling. It's ironic that in the edition about civ switching they demonstrated they can make evergreen civs really well. I think the only tough antiquity civs are Maurya (pantheons) and Carthage (legacy gets you more cities). You just need some generic-ish tradition trees a la enduring empires.

Going backwards is tougher, so I don't think playing civs in earlier ages is something we should push for. But I think for me, the ability to keep playing your current Civ is the minimum l'll need to see to buy more DLC. And not just a cosmetic name change; I want to still build Hawilti, or get great works from conquest...

I'd also argue that's the best "middle-ground' solution to reach. People who like civ switching can still switch, people who don't want to, don't have to. It only disadvantages players who specifically want to play late era civs.

Without it I think I'll probably jump ship to paradox as I did for Civ5...

 

[Kwami]

The definition of hate is a slippery one, I've seen very negative reviews on Steam with more than 300 hours in game.

These are the most confusing reviews. Are they hate playing the game or something? Is this like hate watching TV? Because 300 hours is a long time to do something that you don't like doing!

 

[Leucarum]

These are the most confusing reviews. Are they hate playing the game or something? Is this like hate watching TV? Because 300 hours is a long time to do something that you don't like doing!

I can see not reccommending Civ7 after playing for a long time.

I kind of feel like it is simultaneously the best (antiquity) and the worst (modern) Civ game ever. Most of my playtime is in single-era games. But it's tough to recommend people buy a game for the 1/3 that is great...

 

[Wrenched]

With the praise that antiquity is getting I wonder if Firaxis could release Civilization VII: Antiquity Edition with just that age as a standalone product for something like $30.

 

[Leucarum]

With the praise that antiquity is getting I wonder if Firaxis could release Civilization VII: Antiquity Edition with just that age as a standalone product for something like $30.

Expand and extend antiquity Civ7 as a spinoff? I'd buy and play the hell out of that!

 

[Crashdummy]

With the praise that antiquity is getting I wonder if Firaxis could release Civilization VII: Antiquity Edition with just that age as a standalone product for something like $30.

Unlikely, since many popular Civs dont have antiquity version, and i dont know why anyone would buy that when they can just play Antiquity and quit when it ends

Its not like we have any kind of real victory screen, game review, end of game stats or anything at all that would make it interesting to spend 30 bucks on it