Crashdummy
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2025
- Messages
- 408
September cant be used to do a comparison, since it had no update, which meant it never received the influx of players from it
September cant be used to do a comparison, since it had no update, which meant it never received the influx of players from it
There is a correlation between player counts and new owners
This is something that I can't prove using Steam stats, but at the moment, Civ 7 is selling slowly on Steam and reviews are improving. Whenever Civ7 is on sale, it seems that there is a surge of negative reviews.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Yes, but it's also weak, because existing owners deciding to play or not for a variety of reasons, totally overshadow this correlation.There is a correlation between player counts and new owners
IntelligentDisk
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2025
- Messages
- 143
Only the August sale saw a big drop in the positive %. From a comment I left yesterday:
There is certainly a correlation. Civ VI had increases in player count that can't be attributed to Civ 7 or updates, because there were none.
It cant be detected from the overall score. You have to look at 30 day periods.
stealth_nsk
Deity
There are much more factors, from holidays to other game releases, which swing the number of active players back and forth. Sure, there's some correlation between increase of this count and increased number of owners, but inside with all other factors coming in play, you can't realistically find it. I mean look at Civ6 simultaneous player number for the last 2 years - you could expect more or less stable flow of users, but simultaneous number of players swings in 2x range. Moreover, it has no noticeable reaction on things which in theory should affect sales like Humble Bundle sales.
IntelligentDisk
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2025
- Messages
- 143
I just posted the exact percentages in my reply to you.
EU5, I think will be awesome , major improvements to 4 add in a sprinkling of Victoria 3 and Crusader Kings will hopefully take the core elements to a most successful next addition to the series
1/2 The price of "civ" Vii, no withheld content and 4 sure a better UI .
I cant see it being released anywhere as appalling bad as "civ cii
Perhaps it's different elsewhere, but in the US, EU5 is $60 and Civ7 is $70. That's not half. And there absolutely is withheld content. There's already a season pass available that contains an instant unlock of building models, an immersion pack, and two "chronicle packs", whatever that is. Oh, and there's another unlock of building models if you sign up for their newsletter. And a pre-order bonus, which is the EU4 soundtrack for some reason.
Have you been around for previous Paradox releases?
Premium Edition is 85 EUR and includes 3 DLCs. It is quite tempting.
But not half, indeed.
Crashdummy
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2025
- Messages
- 408
I am not an EU enjoyer, and i cant talk about the content. But the UI comment should be a given, it would be hard to make a modern 4x game with a worse UI than LAUNCH Civ VII
queenpea
Emperor
It's not half, that's true. I paid $130 for the Founder's Edition, and if I could do it again, I'm not sure I would do it any differently because I really wanted to play during the advanced access window. At the same time, I can't say that it was a wise purchase, as I do think that the DLC that was included in the FE has been overpriced and disappointing.
When you look at the top line prices for both games: US $130 for the Founder's Edition compared to $85 for the top-of-the-line EU V variant with the DLC you listed, it's a difference of $45, which is not half, but it's not nothing either. The "chronicle" packs will interest players who enjoy playing the nations in the descriptions: Castile, Morocco, France, and Scotland (and their neighbors) -- but if you aren't interested in these nations, you may decide to skip these for now or to purchase them later when they go on sale. When I purchased Founder's, I didn't know what civilizations would be included, for example.
While I recognize that Paradox is (in)famous for their DLC model, it does seem (to me) that the base game and the "deluxe" version have been priced more fairly than Civ VII. The most common complaint about EU5 is that the game has been delivered with too many features that it's confusing and overwhelming for players. I don't think anyone can accuse Civ VII of the same.
Regardless, the player bases are different, so I am not sure what the long term effects will be. I'm sure Ed Beach will be very busy in his office starting Tuesday, November 4, as I suspect he is a big-time EU devotee.
We'll see. Paradox DLC is almost always overpriced. I expect that you'll get very little for that extra $25.
Anyway, I was only correcting two absolutely false claims. EU5 is not half the price and does have withheld content.
queenpea
Emperor
Fair enough! I think both publishers have their devotees that will spend whatever in a completionist mindset. I suspect there is more perceived value in Civ DLC when you're a Civ fan, and more value in PDS DLC when you're addicted to EU 5. We will see how it all washes out.
I dont think EU5 is on a path to get a 47% review score. The game is apparently rather buggy, so maybe not a great score either. But bugs can be fixed easier than a game where the core is the problem.
The difference between the franchises can be seen in the trajectory of each iteration of the games.
EU games get bigger, more complex and more realistic. Civ games get smaller (since civ3?), simpler and less realistic.
My personal preference is a sandbox game that spans the the entire history of mankind and yet I ended up buying the EU5 premium edition while I didn’t buy civ7.
The trajectory and design philosophy of the entire civ franchise is flawed if I was ever among their target audience.
Believe it or not, but EU games were originally a boardgame. It is possible to make good PC games without being stuck in that backwards and antiquated mindset.
The difference between the franchises can be seen in the trajectory of each iteration of the games.
EU games get bigger, more complex and more realistic. Civ games get smaller (since civ3?), simpler and less realistic.
My personal preference is a sandbox game that spans the the entire history of mankind and yet I ended up buying the EU5 premium edition while I didn’t buy civ7.
The trajectory and design philosophy of the entire civ franchise is flawed if I was ever among their target audience.
Believe it or not, but EU games were originally a boardgame. It is possible to make good PC games without being stuck in that backwards and antiquated mindset.
The only way I can understand the DLC criticism for Paradox as well as for Civ6 is if people expect to get everything for free. But if a game is evolving it means new challenges, new situations and thus longer fun. I quite like that. And if I get more than a 1.000 hours of a game I am willing to pay more for it. And the great thing about it is I do not have to. If I do not like the content I can skip it. For example in Civ6 I did not buy Grand Columbia or whatever Civ Lady Six Sky represented because I did not care for them. For CK3 I have the DLC for Europe and South America because these are the regions I like to play. And I can also skip graphic packs and sound tracks as well as scenarios for Civ6 because I don't care about them. So I get the chance to improve the game for me without having to. Perfect solution!
My problem with the Paradox model is that it results in a very fragmented audience. They introduce core game mechanics and other important changes in DLCs. If you skip a pack, then you aren't just missing out on flavor for a small number of countries; you're missing out on important game mechanics. The next DLC can't rely on those game mechanics, though, because some players won't have them available. Keep doing that for a few years and you have a very complicated game with far too many different variants to support and a whole lot of DLC that doesn't interact with the rest of the DLC.
Firaxis solves that problem by only making mechanical changes in larger expansion packs and by including all of the previous expansion's changes in the latest one. For example, if you bought Gathering Storm for Civ6, then you got all of the Rise & Fall changes, too. You only missed out on the civilizations and leaders.
Well, and also, they put out a lot of pretty bad DLC for EU4 at very high prices. They admitted as much and made a lot of changes to the studio after that, so maybe they're better now, but after the BS they pulled with Surviving Mars: Relaunched, I doubt it.
Similar threads
