Take-Two CEO Insists Projections for the 'Lifetime Value' of Civilization 7 Are 'Very Consistent With Our Initial Expectations for the Title'

[Smegger213]

"slow start"? I agree with the "corporate speak" statement! Civ VII doesn't register on Steam top 100 - Civ VI does, respectably, and Civ V is in there, for goodness sake!

I've played Civ and loved it since 1992-3. Proper Civ Junkie? I haven't got Civ VII yet.

I know I'm far from alone. I think that says a lot?

Er, Civ 7 is at 39 in the Steam chart in the UK. However it was at number 23 the other day, so its dropped a few places. But that is only because its discounted at the moment.

 

[Wrenched]

I would expect that they considered the possibility of a reception similar to what Beyond Earth experienced. I imagine that tough questions were asked about Ed's and the team's commitment to the vision of multiple ages and civs aligned to each age

I think the Take Two CEO is willing to be more patient with this divisive design since if they can pull it off they can monetize Civilization in a myriad of new ways that was not possible before. Ages and Civ switching widely open the door to piecemeal DLC.

Whether that was an original design intent or a nice bonus side effect...

 

[McSpank01]

I think the Take Two CEO is willing to be more patient with this divisive design since if they can pull it off they can monetize Civilization in a myriad of new ways that was not possible before. Ages and Civ switching widely open the door to piecemeal DLC.

Whether that was an original design intent or a nice bonus side effect...

yeah it might be that they can get away with a smaller number of players, if they have a core set of players who are highly profitable. A bit like the free to play model, where it's just a small subset of players who are basically paying for all the other players to have a free game.

If there are a big enough set of committed civ 7 players who gobble up all the DLC, and each DLC is overly expensive, then I guess it could work out. I'm just not seeing that level of passion for the game though that might be enough.

 

[AD1730]

yeah it might be that they can get away with a smaller number of players, if they have a core set of players who are highly profitable. A bit like the free to play model, where it's just a small subset of players who are basically paying for all the other players to have a free game.

If there are a big enough set of committed civ 7 players who gobble up all the DLC, and each DLC is overly expensive, then I guess it could work out. I'm just not seeing that level of passion for the game though that might be enough.

Squeezing more money out of fewer people rarely works out well in the long run.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

1) he's consuming what are called "controlled substances".
2) they've burned a LOT of goodwill on this game. So much so that Civ 8 better be spectacular, as many are just gonna sit on the sidelines and wait.
3) monetizing: they can try, but it'll fail. (at least with me) Diablo IV looked good, played it, sucked. Haven't gone back. (1 thru 3 yes)

They screwed up so yup, using suitspeak to try and hide that. Sorry bubs, but we broke that code a looonnng time ago.

 

[bladex1200]

1) he's consuming what are called "controlled substances".
2) they've burned a LOT of goodwill on this game. So much so that Civ 8 better be spectacular, as many are just gonna sit on the sidelines and wait.
3) monetizing: they can try, but it'll fail. (at least with me) Diablo IV looked good, played it, sucked. Haven't gone back. (1 thru 3 yes)

They screwed up so yup, using suitspeak to try and hide that. Sorry bubs, but we broke that code a looonnng time ago.

Worth noting the comparison to Diablo IV portents good things for this hypermonetization. That game has, by most financial metrics, succeeded.