Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gorbles]

They pleased both groups for DECADES

Given that certain players in this thread (like Core Imposter) alone never moved past a specific iteration, this is flat-out incorrect.

Not criticising CI here for their choice, either - plenty of players stuck with IV, V, VI, or maybe even older titles.

 

[Evolena]

I've at least seen the wargame grief about previous iterations too.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think for most players, the game just has to have sufficient depth to support multiple play styles.

This is my view as well. In fact, for me, this is the most fundamental thing to have in mind as they begin the design of any new iteration of the game.

I have said in several previous threads that I think Civ is best conceived as a race game, like Chutes (or Snakes) and Ladders or Sorry. The main interest is seeing whether you can reach a destination more quickly than the other players, and the fundamental excitement while playing is getting things that speed your progress to a destination.

But . . . what makes Civ a little different from most race games is that it gives the player and AI several possible destinations to race toward. So, I can be racing to launch my spaceship while you can be racing to convert the world to your religion. So part of the fun of it is asking "can I get to destination X more quickly than another player can get to destination Y?"

I think the designers should recognize these two things as being what makes Civ unique as a game.

And that's not just so as to please warmongers and those who want other game objectives. It's for the following broader reason. Whichever goal line you pick has a game focus. If you're trying for the space ship, you do everything to enhance your science. If you're trying for a cultural victory, you do everything to up your culture. If you're going for a domination victory, you build as big a military as you can. But each of those things is valuable regardless of the victory type you are seeking. There are ways that culture benefits you even if you're going for a science win. A military helps you even if you're going for a cultural win, if only to keep hold of all the wonders you've built. A good economy is useful to a military victory. So each major strand of the game is partly fungible with the other main strands. This gives the game's biggest strategizing: how can I use this nearby faith-enhancing natural wonder to help me with my science victory? And it gives the game's biggest challenge: tradeoffs. Sure I need another unit for my military ambitions, but I've been neglecting culture way too much and that's going to bite me once the ideologies come along. My science victory depends heavily on getting universities up as fast as I can, but if Shaka attacks and I have no units with which to defend, all my universities are for nothing. In a good game of Civ, my choices are sometimes wincingly difficult to make, because I know how much the thing I'm not doing could also have helped me.

All of this in turn, provides the details around which players who like to build a narrative do so: Yes the jungles in which I built my major cities slowed my growth a bit in antiquity, but once universities came in, man, did my science take off.

 

[Leucarum]

I also think Firaxis are starting to do exactly what's needed to resolve some of these irreconcilable differences by making as much as possible into game modes. Upon launch Civ7's philosophy does appear to have been to nudge players to play in specific ways. I don't think that one has worked out and that they need to move towards a philosophy of letting the players set up the game that they want to play.

The cost of that approach is that 7's design was very tightly interwoven, and if every player is tugging at the threads in different ways, they'll need to rethink some pretty fundamental systems that they can't guarantee will always function well. But Civ7 has a very good foundation, the broad strokes are great, it's the details that aren't.

I personally hope this is the approach they're going for anyway... I really can't see myself buying DLC given how disappointed I was with how little I got out of Crossroads or R2R, and I don't think I'd feel that way without civ switching and prescriptive legacy paths.

 

[Xur]

When progress looks somewhat like this in a 4X game, then everything is almost entirely pointless (to me).

 

[aieeegrunt]

I’ve made this point before numerous times but previous titles allowed you to play your own game in the sandbox you’re own way, it was a key part of Civ’s success.

A yield porn minimaxer and an emergent story role player like myself could both enjoy Civ6

If I felt like I was running away with the game, I could hit restart if I wanted. If I felt like a curbstomp, I could keep going

Point was you took the Civ sandbox and found your own fun

7 took all of that away

 

[Gorbles]

I’ve made this point before numerous times but previous titles allowed you to play your own game in the sandbox you’re own way, it was a key part of Civ’s success.

A yield porn minimaxer and an emergent story role player like myself could both enjoy Civ6

If I felt like I was running away with the game, I could hit restart if I wanted. If I felt like a curbstomp, I could keep going

Point was you took the Civ sandbox and found your own fun

7 took all of that away

You can still restart games, and the Continuity Transition option (which I think is default, now) means you don't lose anything of what you lost in the original design (now called Regroup). You'll find yourself running away pretty much the same as in earlier games. I don't like Continuity myself, I prefer Regroup. But that's options for you.

This is separate to picking a new civilisation with your existing leader, which could also be a immersion break. Just correcting what VII has or hasn't taken away.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

I checked Steam Scout and also looked up review data for Civ7 by language, and indeed, Simplified Chinese has the lowest positive rating among all languages with over 100 reviews—noticeably lower than the other languages. Another thing I noticed is that when I compared this to Civ 6, the percentage of reviews in Simplified Chinese relative to the total (15.04% for Civ7) is less than half that of Civ6 (35.95%).

This suggests that Chinese players not only rejected Civ7 far more strongly but also bought the game much less compared to Civ6 (apparently even shrank quite a lot proportionally). Well, it seems they have a serious problem with Chinese audience, and that’s something they’ll need to address.

I think the price increase is a big reason for that. 36% price increase from Civ VI to Civ VII. (¥220 to ¥300). The lowest Civ VI had been on sale in China at this point in its life cycle was ¥109, whereas Civ VII has only been as low as ¥208. That's 91% more expensive comparing their lowest prices at the same point in the life cycles.

Regarding the far worse reviews, throughout May & June Civ VII was being somewhat review-bombed, mainly by Chinese reviewers, accusing 2k/Take-Two of "spying". The worst was across June 8th-10th. Civ VII had 314 reviews, 28 positive, 286 negative - 8.9% positive rating.

 

[Krikkit1]

View attachment 745045
When progress looks somewhat like this in a 4X game, then everything is almost entirely pointless (to me).

Except it doesn’t look like that. Even “Total Techs/Civics” some civs start an age ahead of others because of Future Techs/Civics researched last age.

 

[Leucarum]

Except it doesn’t look like that. Even “Total Techs/Civics” some civs start an age ahead of others because of Future Techs/Civics researched last age.

When Civ7 launched I played a game with my usual Civ6 MP group and it was the first game for most of us. It was very fascinating watching the real time reaction to an era transition. The tech squish was a huge sticking point. It felt to some of the players as of their progress on tech didn't matter because they were just doing these future techs, and then everyone got pushed to the same level.

I have argued that the tech squish does make millitary gameplay more interesting, but I can very easily see how it might undermine the basis of a Civ game for players who really love to push a science lead and then leverage it. That's a power fantasy which Civ7 doesn't completely destroy, but it puts a very firm leash on and stops it pulling very far ahead in quite a heavy handed way.

 

[Siptah]

View attachment 745045
When progress looks somewhat like this in a 4X game, then everything is almost entirely pointless (to me).

I know this is meant to be schematic and hyperbole, but it would be interesting to see what you actually think this shows. I assume x is time/turns, but what is y supposed to be? It doesn't align for neither military power, overall score, science, culture, or number of settlements. So what is meant by "progress"?

 

[Xur]

Except it doesn’t look like that. Even “Total Techs/Civics” some civs start an age ahead of others because of Future Techs/Civics researched last age.

"somewhat" as moderately, to some degree, in some measure, kind of or slightly like that.

 

[aieeegrunt]

You can still restart games, and the Continuity Transition option (which I think is default, now) means you don't lose anything of what you lost in the original design (now called Regroup). You'll find yourself running away pretty much the same as in earlier games. I don't like Continuity myself, I prefer Regroup. But that's options for you.

This is separate to picking a new civilisation with your existing leader, which could also be a immersion break. Just correcting what VII has or hasn't taken away.

Are my units still teleported, and or deleted, and or upgraded by developer fiat?

Are my cities/towns etc changed?

Does infrastructure randomly break or whatever?

And most importantly is my civ changed for me?

Then yes this is basically Ed Beach leaning over my shoulder and hitting Restart when he feels like it.

I subscribe to a view of inevitable collapse as illustrated by Joseph Tainter, so I get where this “History in Layers” thing is coming from, but I’m playing a game, not a history seminar.

Like at least let me olay out the collapse!

 

[IntelligentDisk]

The price differences between Civ VI & Civ VII at their lowest points at this point in their life cycles (252 days in). Only countries which have 1% or more of Steam users included.

1. USA (14.8% of Steam users) 36% more expensive
2. China (12.3% of Steam users) 91% more expensive
3. Russia (10.3%) data missing
4. Brazil (5.3% of Steam users) 216% more expensive
5. Germany (3.9% of Steam users) 36% more expensive
6. Canada (3.2% of Steam users) 31% more expensive
7. Turkey (3% of Steam users) data missing
8. France (3% of Steam users) 36% more expensive
9. UK (2.8% of Steam users) 40% more expensive
10. Poland (2.4% of Steam users) data missing
11. Philippines (2.3% of Steam users) 56% more expensive
12. Ukraine (2.2% of Steam users) data missing
13. Japan (1.7% of Steam users) 47% more expensive
14. South Korea (1.6% of Steam users) 49% more expensive
15. Indonesia (1.5% of Steam users) 55% more expensive
16. Australia (1.5% of Steam users) data missing
17. Argentina (1.4% of Steam users) data missing
18. Thailand (1.3% of Steam users) 31% more expensive
19. Spain (1.3% of Steam users) 36% more expensive
20. Italy (1.2% of Steam users) 36% more expensive
21. Romania (1.1% of Steam users) data missing
22. Mexico (1.1% of Steam users) 132% more expensive
23. India (1% of Steam users) 87% more expensive

 

[Xandinho]

4. Brazil (5.3% of Steam users) 216% more expensive

The game is absurdly expensive in Brazil. Most Brazilian players are refusing to buy it until it’s sold at a reasonable price. I only bought it at launch because this is the only franchise I play regularly.

 

[Gorbles]

Are my units still teleported, and or deleted, and or upgraded by developer fiat?

Are my cities/towns etc changed?

Does infrastructure randomly break or whatever?

I believe the whole point of Continuity is that your units don't move. But I don't use it myself.

Unit upgrades are still mandatory, I guess that could be important for a storyteller? But not a yield min maxer.

I believe specifics depend on your gameplay choices. I've never had trouble with Cities and Towns personally, but I don't upgrade all my Towns (haven't since very early after release - Towns are super useful, and moreso than ever since 1.2.5).

No idea what you mean by infrastructure breaking. Overbuilding I guess? I don't see how that matters for a yield min maxer or a storyteller as the buildings still exist and are visible until you make a player choice to replace them.

I mean, I know you're likely going to be against VII in any form unless it reverts to a slightly improved version of VI. And that's fine. I'm not here to persuade you to like VII.

I was correcting things you were claiming, that are incorrect given the current state of the game. No more, no less.

And most importantly is my civ changed for me?

I mentioned the Civ choice as a remaining immersion break in my post. Did you . . . read it? Or did you just go off about all your personal issues with VII, which have little relevance to my point?

 

[Kwami]

The price differences between Civ VI & Civ VII at their lowest points at this point in their life cycles (252 days in). Only countries which have 1% or more of Steam users included.

1. USA (14.8% of Steam users) 36% more expensive
2. China (12.3% of Steam users) 91% more expensive
3. Russia (10.3%) data missing
4. Brazil (5.3% of Steam users) 216% more expensive
5. Germany (3.9% of Steam users) 36% more expensive
6. Canada (3.2% of Steam users) 31% more expensive
7. Turkey (3% of Steam users) data missing
8. France (3% of Steam users) 36% more expensive
9. UK (2.8% of Steam users) 40% more expensive
10. Poland (2.4% of Steam users) data missing
11. Philippines (2.3% of Steam users) 56% more expensive
12. Ukraine (2.2% of Steam users) data missing
13. Japan (1.7% of Steam users) 47% more expensive
14. South Korea (1.6% of Steam users) 49% more expensive
15. Indonesia (1.5% of Steam users) 55% more expensive
16. Australia (1.5% of Steam users) data missing
17. Argentina (1.4% of Steam users) data missing
18. Thailand (1.3% of Steam users) 31% more expensive
19. Spain (1.3% of Steam users) 36% more expensive
20. Italy (1.2% of Steam users) 36% more expensive
21. Romania (1.1% of Steam users) data missing
22. Mexico (1.1% of Steam users) 132% more expensive
23. India (1% of Steam users) 87% more expensive

OK, but how do those numbers look after accounting for inflation?

 

[bladex1200]

OK, but how do those numbers look after accounting for inflation?

Also important to ask how does the inflation-adjusted GDP growth look for each country as well as any cost-of-living basket adjustments. If food, housing, healthcare, or transportation are getting significantly more expensive, OR if inflation-adjusted GDP is lagging or even shrinking for some of these nations, then even if the numbers look similar or even 'better' (e.g. CivVII is actually cheaper than VI was at release if we adjust for purchasing power rather than raw cost) people will still be angry and feel it is a squeeze on a non-essential resource.

EDIT: Not saying its somehow 2K's or Firaxis' fault that these things happen, obviously, but it is what it is. You both don't have a choice AND are also responsible for the consequences, that's how it goes in a market economy. That's why so many companies are excited to capture markets and become rentier-oriented rather than innovation-oriented. It's not fair, you don't get what you 'deserve' on a moral or abstract objective scale, you get what you get.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I believe the whole point of Continuity is that your units don't move. But I don't use it myself.

Unit upgrades are still mandatory, I guess that could be important for a storyteller? But not a yield min maxer.

I believe specifics depend on your gameplay choices. I've never had trouble with Cities and Towns personally, but I don't upgrade all my Towns (haven't since very early after release - Towns are super useful, and moreso than ever since 1.2.5).

No idea what you mean by infrastructure breaking. Overbuilding I guess? I don't see how that matters for a yield min maxer or a storyteller as the buildings still exist and are visible until you make a player choice to replace them.

I mean, I know you're likely going to be against VII in any form unless it reverts to a slightly improved version of VI. And that's fine. I'm not here to persuade you to like VII.

I was correcting things you were claiming, that are incorrect given the current state of the game. No more, no less.

I mentioned the Civ choice as a remaining immersion break in my post. Did you . . . read it? Or did you just go off about all your personal issues with VII, which have little relevance to my point?

There are plenty of new mechanics in 7 that I’d be willing to try, but ya the forced era reset is an automatic no

I’m hardly alone in this

 

[Gorbles]

There are plenty of new mechanics in 7 that I’d be willing to try, but ya the forced era reset is an automatic no

I’m hardly alone in this

Fair enough! Never said you were.