Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Leucarum]

The main thing is that they don't promise features, they tell what's being worked on.

What's the difference?

And while it really works for niche gaming community, it usually doesn't work for AAA games, there each piece of communication is interpreted as promise. (The point about Paradox games requiring less testing also stands)

If you want early roadmaps and outlines maybe check out Victoria 3 - in particular the "What's next" dev diaries. Honestly, I don't think something similar would be out of the scope of possibility for Civ7.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What's the difference?

The difference is that if you work on something and it doesn't deliver result, you could just cancel the feature and it's fine. If you promise and don't deliver, you get backlash.

If you want early roadmaps and outlines maybe check out Victoria 3 - in particular the "What's next" dev diaries. Honestly, I don't think something similar would be out of the scope of possibility for Civ7.

Some things are possible. For example, developers could always put vague things like "balance" or "improve" to roadmaps. Features, which are "must have" (among which I believe only HotSeat remains) could also be put there.

But if developers want to speak about gameplay features they work on in more details, they need to change their communication from AAA-game marketing to some "indie style". I don't think that's possible with Civ franchise positioning.

 

[Leucarum]

The difference is that if you work on something and it doesn't deliver result, you could just cancel the feature and it's fine. If you promise and don't deliver, you get backlash.

I pointed you at those dev diaries as they are making long term promises.

Some things are possible. For example, developers could always put vague things like "balance" or "improve" to roadmaps. Features, which are "must have" (among which I believe only HotSeat remains) could also be put there.

But if developers want to speak about gameplay features they work on in more details, they need to change their communication from AAA-game marketing to some "indie style". I don't think that's possible with Civ franchise positioning.

Hard disagree. Firaxis have improved their communication in some areas, but it still has room for improvement. Also if you want to look at "indie style" communication working astonishingly well in a AAA game can I point you toward our Lord and Saviour Baldur's Gate 3?

 

[Pfeffersack]

@Leucarum did a nice job in explaining my reasoning Yes, I was refering to dev diaries, e.g. the recent ones for Vic3 introducing the reworks of world market and culture system. CK3 had examples in the past, too.The DDs are especially early on full of placeholders and sometimes even the text explicitly states that certain topics are still somewhat "idea-ish" instead of being a future, but you get an idea what is worked on and why it will still take time. Vic3 is also an example for a good use of a roadmap, which gets meticiously updated after each bigger DLC/patch by labeling the entries whether they are new, untouched, improved (but still worked on) or finished (at least for the moment).

 

[stealth_nsk]

I pointed you at those dev diaries as they are making long term promises.

I can't say I've looked at many those dev. diaries, but they look as normal dev. diaries and not roadmaps. As I see, they combination of several things:

• Already done features just before the release
• Vague plans - areas where they identify problems but don't post solution yet
• Work in progress - things they currently work on, but could reconsider in the future (I've seen the word "reconsidered" in Victoria dev diaries as feature status, but I don't know how common it is)

So, once again, why I really love those developer updates, that's a bit different form of communication.

Hard disagree. Firaxis have improved their communication in some areas, but it still has room for improvement. Also if you want to look at "indie style" communication working astonishingly well in a AAA game can I point you toward our Lord and Saviour Baldur's Gate 3?

Baldur's Gate 3 is not AAA game, by definition AAA games have high development and marketing budget, which BG3 didn't have. It's classic case of commercially successful AA game and yes, "indie style" communication was part of the reason of this success. Unfortunately, those guerilla marketing tactics are not reproducible, they could shine, but they could also fail dramatically. That's why large corporations like 2K prefer classic marketing approach.

 

[Kev1916]

BG3 is a most definitely an AAA game, and its developer is an indie dev, so both.

Re lack of road map or future plans , Id imagine that is probably due to the fact that at the mo the “civ” vii is in a half way house of try another con with an expensive expansion or call it a day

 

[itix]

I can't say I've looked at many those dev. diaries, but they look as normal dev. diaries and not roadmaps. As I see, they combination of several things:

• Already done features just before the release
• Vague plans - areas where they identify problems but don't post solution yet
• Work in progress - things they currently work on, but could reconsider in the future (I've seen the word "reconsidered" in Victoria dev diaries as feature status, but I don't know how common it is)

So, once again, why I really love those developer updates, that's a bit different form of communication.

In HOI4 forum, you can comment on dev diaries and devs might comment back. It is interactive, unlike the monodirectional developer update where the dev just says "this is what we did, bye". If it didnt answer your questions, tough luck. Comment sections are just a black hole.

 

[Leucarum]

Baldur's Gate 3 is not AAA game, by definition AAA games have high development and marketing budget, which BG3 didn't have.

It's on the borderline sure... But It's probably more AAA than Civ is...

The argument seems to be is "Firaxis is special" or "Civ is special." Arguments based on something being exceptional by nature rarely hold water.

Vague plans - areas where they identify problems but don't post solution yet

Yes, that's the point. The playerbase has a chance to weigh in fully while features are underdevelopment.

As for your other points. A roadmap which is never updated with jobs completed would be bad, no? And a dev highlighting what didn't work shows that a) they aren't wedded to specific ideas and b) is good to stop ideas being thrown around everywhere.

 

[Gorbles]

BG3 is a most definitely an AAA game, and its developer is an indie dev, so both.

AAA (video game industry) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the video game industry, AAA (Triple-A) is a buzzword used to classify video games produced or distributed by a mid-sized or major publisher, which typically have higher development and marketing budgets than other tiers of games*

An indie, or independent developer, does not have a (different) publisher and therefore cannot be AAA.

The fact that an indie game can be such a success is fantastic, and speaks volumes to the studio itself. And that shouldn't stop people expecting things from Civilisation. But the fact is Larian has latitude where Firaxis does not, being owned and managed by 2K.

*the referenced source is "Steinberg, Scott (2007). The definitive Guide: Videogame Marketing and PR (1st ed.). iUniverse"

 

[IntelligentDisk]

I can see with some people on here, that I am wasting my time commenting.
There's always that one person that just will not accept the established facts that are right in front of their eyes.
So, enjoy your arguments in this thread.
I will just stick to checking and reporting on the numbers at the end of each month.
No amount of posting stupid graphs will convince me that this game is faring better in reviews and player counts.

Once again there is no rebuttal to anything I replied to you last. Refusal to acknowledge anything positive. "There's always that one person that just will not accept the established facts that are right in front of their eyes." - you've just described yourself denying factual data.

I think people are fighting over relative wins Vs absolute wins. 40% positive reviews is pretty bad for a game like this.
Going from 40% to 50% in one particular month is a relative victory. You can say things are getting better, but you don't strictly know that it will continue to trend in that way.
It might hit 50% and stay stagnant. It might hit 50% just for that month and the overall average barely changes, for example.

In absolute terms, it has a long way to go to be considered well reviewed. This is why a lot of critics continue to say that it's not enough - because that's true.
The game isn't going to be saved by a handful of minor patches adding things that should've already been in the game like map sizes.

And while I think many people think the game is irredeemable, there's almost certainly a silent majority who think the game is below par as-is and are waiting for the game to Actually change.

Not change in the Youtuber clickbait style, or completely overhaul the game into something unrecognisable. But just genuine constructive change, that is major in substance, and fleshes out the skeleton that we have. And hopefully addresses some of the core issues some people have with it.

The issue is certain people will not acknowledge anything positive. No one has claimed the game is now on a permanent incline in terms of positive Steam reviews and the player count. Flat out denial about recent Steam reviews being the best since launch as well as some of the best player count numbers in 4/5 months is just absurd when its plain to see in the data. Any attempt to appease them is just a waste of effort as it goes ignored. It's absolutely a long way away from being positively reviewed overall, I've stated many times it will take years.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

We find out what is being worked on next in various "From the Devs" articles and in Dev Update videos. Some things mentioned in recent months:

• Improved UI (Settlement Banners, Overbuilding experience, Commerce Hub)
• "Collapse" Age Transition Impact setting
• More maps & settings
• More balance passes
• HotSeat

I'm not sure why they can't come up with some sort of roadmap to summarise what they've already said they're working on but in a more cohesive manner like they did in February, but the information is out there.

 

[Core Imposter]

The fact that an indie game can be such a success is fantastic, and speaks volumes to the studio itself. And that shouldn't stop people expecting things from Civilisation. But the fact is Larian has latitude where Firaxis does not, being owned and managed by 2K.

Unexpected gem falling from the sky. Gorbles makes great point not always appreciated. Civ 7 might be an entirely different product but for the relationships under which it was produced. And there are probably people in the chain of command who would love to point fingers but can't. We only heard that one UI related wail. I would speculate that no final decision has likely been made on the future development on this title. And go further and guess that two or three "development paths" which are contradictory are being assumed by different players.

So, while we witness heated debates about possible trends here, there, there be working entities that are probably not even communicating about the future in any coherent or definitive way. Too much distance from head to tail.

 

[AD1730]

EU5 will likely sell more copies at launch than Civ 7 and Paradox has had in-depth dev diaries and communication with the community. Paradox does that for basically all of their own games these days, and it's not uncommon for dev diaries to be released weekly. Firaxis not doing the same or similar is a choice, and I believe it's a poor one.

 

[Kwami]

EU5 will likely sell more copies at launch than Civ 7 and Paradox has had in-depth dev diaries and communication with the community. Paradox does that for basically all of their own games these days, and it's not uncommon for dev diaries to be released weekly. Firaxis not doing the same or similar is a choice, and I believe it's a poor one.

Maybe, but EU4 took about 8 years to sell 2 million copies. Civ7 likely did that in much, much less time. Paradox games are more popular now than they were in 2013, but are they popular enough to sell a few million copies in a few months? We'll see.

 

[King Flevance]

The lack of communication worries me as well. Promising future development plans can be fixed by communicating "playtests proved this feature did not work as intended and has been put aside" or something. Just simple communication.

Games with good support can have good dev communication and some have little to no dev communication. However, games with poor support pretty much all have little to no dev communication also. So poor communication by itself may be no indicator but good communication is often viewed as a sign of good faith. I am not convinced Firaxis has went silent yet, but silence can certainly worry.

This is a social etiquette. PR departments may think this doesn't matter and that statistics in social sciences are the more reliable path but it's predictable and cold when we see them all doing it. This idea that "saying nothing is smarter" is just an admission that it is chaos with no clear direction on their end, which I find off putting.

 

[lymond]

Moderator Action: A reminder of a mod post made by me a while back.

Moderator Action: The use of "cope" or "coping" will stop now. It is condescending, degrading, insulting, and most of all, lazy. Make your arguments with valid points. Don't resort to childish retaliation. This is not TikTok. -lymond

 

[Smegger213]

Here's an example of why its a waste of time trying to count reviews on a weekly basis.

First of all, lets start by counting the last 3 weeks, starting on a Tuesday, seeing as the game was released on a Tuesday.

Week start Tue 30th Sept = 149 positive, 205 negative = 42% positive.
Week start Tue 7th Oct = 123 positive, 127 negative = 49.2% positive.
Week start Tue 14th Oct = 97 positive, 100 negative = 49.24% positive.

But what do we get if we start our weekly count from a Thursday?

Week start Thur 2nd Oct = 139 positive, 174 negative = 44.4% positive.
Week start Thur 9th Oct = 107 positive, 106 negative = 50.2% positive.
Week start Thur 16th Oct = 101 positive, 101 negative = 50% positive.

So, clearly, I can show a better % positive result by starting my weekly counts from a Thursday.

That is why its a complete waste of time trying to count review numbers on a weekly basis.

 

[Gorbles]

So, clearly, I can show a better % positive result by starting my weekly counts from a Thursday.

That is why its a complete waste of time trying to count review numbers on a weekly basis.

Except that both sets of counts show a sustained (minor) increase (with a very minor loss from Thurs 9th to Thurs 16th: 50.2% to 50% positive).

Are you sure you understand the point you're criticising? The point isn't "50 is bigger than 49%, and we can fudge that by changing the day of the week offset". The point is nomatter which day you measured from, we've seen an increase from the end of September to the first week in October, and that seems to be sustained.

Week start Tue 30th Sept = 149 positive, 205 negative = 42% positive.
Week start Tue 7th Oct = 123 positive, 127 negative = 49.2% positive.
Week start Tue 14th Oct = 97 positive, 100 negative = 49.24% positive.

First week change 7.2%, net change 7.24% towards positive.

Week start Thur 2nd Oct = 139 positive, 174 negative = 44.4% positive.
Week start Thur 9th Oct = 107 positive, 106 negative = 50.2% positive.
Week start Thur 16th Oct = 101 positive, 101 negative = 50% positive.

First week change 5.8%, net change 5.6% towards positive.

 

[Smegger213]

Except that both sets of counts show a sustained (minor) increase (with a very minor loss from Thurs 9th to Thurs 16th: 50.2% to 50% positive).

Are you sure you understand the point you're criticising? The point isn't "50 is bigger than 49%, and we can fudge that by changing the day of the week offset". The point is nomatter which day you measured from, we've seen an increase from the end of September to the first week in October, and that seems to be sustained.

First week change 7.2%, net change 7.24% towards positive.

First week change 5.8%, net change 5.6% towards positive.

Has there really been more positive reviews recently though?
If you look at the 3 monthly graph, the blue positive section doesn't seem to be moving up much to me.
Now, I am not going to waste my time, going back to August and September to see what the weekly numbers were back then.
What I am proving, is that you can get totally different results by changing your start date.
Therefore its a waste of time counting the numbers weekly.

 

[Kev1916]

Has there really been more positive reviews recently though?
If you look at the 3 monthly graph, the blue positive section doesn't seem to be moving up much to me.
Now, I am not going to waste my time, going back to August and September to see what the weekly numbers were back then.
What I am proving, is that you can get totally different results by changing your start date.
Therefore its a waste of time counting the numbers weekly.

Counting numbers is not really needed as steam keeps the count

All reviews 53% Negative , Current reviews 54% Negative .

The number of reviews and perceived miniscule "improvements " in negative reviews can laughably be ignored .

From the very small number's involved it would take a massive swing in rating's to "positive" or centuries to make any difference