The hate for Civ7 will end the series, if not soon then eventually

[notNamed]

Endless Legend 2, despite having lots of changes, also seems to be exciting rather than dividing the fans in the same way Civ7 did, even pre-launch. Maybe Amplitude is another studio to draw inspiration from, or who could take the helm from Firaxis.

But Civ 6 already copied and modified Endless Legend's core mechanic.
And Civ 7 likewise copied and modified Humankind mechanics and ideas.

Firaxis could literally start sending mails saying "Gesundheit" whenever someone in Bercy sneezes.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Instead, by gambling on much bigger changes to the formula that have had, let's say, a mixed reaction and lower (at this point) player engagement than previous modern titles, Firaxis has risked Civ VII generating a much lower IRR than if it had played it 'safe'.

I think the most important thing of my post is that Firaxis is not gambling with features, it's gambling with audience. Multiplayer focus (including better balance), ability to play shorter games, native console support, etc. - all those things have clear marketing targeting. And the most controversial (among old fans) features (and some problems like weak UI) naturally come from them.

Yes, Firaxis may fail (although there's nothing hinting at this yet), but what they do is very logical strategically.

EDIT: Just to add there. Pissing off some old fans is not a disaster, it's a price which naturally had to be paid for this strategy. Whether this price is too high or not is yet to be seen.

 

[Kev1916]

Endless Legend 2, despite having lots of changes, also seems to be exciting rather than dividing the fans in the same way Civ7 did, even pre-launch. Maybe Amplitude is another studio to draw inspiration from, or who could take the helm from Firaxis.

I've also decided to take a break from civ7 for now, and am playing AoW4. That game really has some nice polish and care, everything seems really smooth and systems are well connected. Lots of in-game help you'd expect from a complicated 4X game.

Yea, totally agree on both points .

also per Endless legends found this quote most interesting

"Hooded Horse is one of the best publishers out there, because of one major reason: It's in their by-laws that the Shareholders have no say in Game Development, and only the Devs themselves can say when the game is ready. As long as a Developer meets their goals, Hooded Horse is the best publisher out there. When it comes to Civ VII, my feelings are 2K forced Firaxis to put it out before it was ready. It came out in February, which is right before the end of year Margin Call happens in March in the US. Gotta get that last bit of profit out if possible before the end of the Fiscal Year! 2K doesn't care if a game is done, only if they can make a quick buck. Firaxis may get Civ VII into shape, but I have a feeling it'll take at least a year, and 2K will make sure that people will have to pay for every improvment as DLC."

 

[user746383]

Is there an example of a successful (or even not) pivot where a video game decided they didn’t like their current fans any more and it was better to go find a new audience? Call of Duty Warzone and Sims 4 maybe?

IMHO if their actual strategy was to ditch people who liked the older games and find a new more lucrative market, they didn’t change enough. CivRev actually was a better experiment in that regard.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Is there an example of a successful (or even not) pivot where a franchise decided they didn’t like their current fans any more and it was better to go find a new audience?

Fallout 3 totally changed genre from previous games and it went really well, same with Dune 2 (although in its time there were no internet as we know it). Civ7 has much less changes than those two

Internet search brings a lot of console titles I'm not really familiar with, so can't say about scope of their changes and their success. Those could be found here, for example:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamingsuggestions/comments/17bisx3/what_video_game_sequel_massively_changed_a

EDIT: And, of course, I forgot to mention the most obvious example - Civ5.

 

[VGT]

All those posts assume Civ7 is a commercial failure. We actually have zero information on it.

There is argument that we don't have sales numbers so we don't know if game is successful or not. But for me the metric we have access to is still valuable. Playercount is showing if game will be successful financially in the long run. It's not the old days where studios released a game in a box, saw the reception and based on that decided if they'll spent a year on expansion or go to develop new game. We're in the world where those games are sold with assumption of milking it a lot more through its lifetime. Every time from day 1 it's always "we'll be continuing to improve our game", so it's not closed chapter with financial success/failure, but ongoing development and cost is still rising. High price on crappy DLC shows 2K has much bigger appetite than just base game sales. And active playerbase is needed to successfully sell DLC's. Even if base game sold on acceptable levels for 2K, allowing vs. cutting further support from Firaxis is most likely highly dependent on how many players will be buying DLC. If it was a forced early release cashgrab before ending fiscal year as it was suggested, then this was very shortsighted by 2K and wil probably hurt them and audience in the long run.

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

I think the most important thing of my post is that Firaxis is not gambling with features, it's gambling with audience. Multiplayer focus (including better balance), ability to play shorter games, native console support, etc. - all those things have clear marketing targeting. And the most controversial (among old fans) features (and some problems like weak UI) naturally come from them.

Yes, Firaxis may fail (although there's nothing hinting at this yet), but what they do is very logical strategically.

EDIT: Just to add there. Pissing off some old fans is not a disaster, it's a price which naturally had to be paid for this strategy. Whether this price is too high or not is yet to be seen.

I'm not sold on the strategic logic as changing the product to appeal to a different target market is an even bigger gamble than changing a product to cater to perceived changing whims of the current customers. That would only make sense when the market you're currently in is in decline and you need to switch out for that reason. Unless you had a strong conviction that you could pull it off, in which case you may feel confident going for it.

Of course, you could also argue that it needn't have been an all or nothing approach - multiplayer could have been made more balanced and a 'standalone ages' game mode could have been introduced without changing the entire product along that paradigm.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There is argument that we don't have sales numbers so we don't know if game is successful or not. But for me the metric we have access to is still valuable. Playercount is showing if game will be successful financially in the long run. It's not the old days where studios released a game in a box, saw the reception and based on that decided if they'll spent a year on expansion or go to develop new game. We're in the world were those games are sold with assumption of milking it a lot more through its lifetime. Every time from day 1 it's always "we'll be continuing to improve our game", so it's not closed chapter with financial success/failure, but ongoing development and cost is still rising. High price on crappy DLC shows 2K has much bigger appetite than just base game sales. And active playerbase is needed to successfully sell DLC's. Even if base game sold on acceptable levels for 2K, allowing vs. cutting further support provided by Firaxis is most likely highly dependent on how many players will be buying DLC. If it was a forced early release cashgrab before ending fiscal year as it was suggested, then this was very shortsighted by 2K and wil probably hurt them and audience in the long run.

General arguments why playercount doesn't really show anything are:

1. Player count shows only Steam players. We have contradicting articles on how well Civ7 performs on consoles, but with its heavy console focus, this part clearly can't be ignored.
2. The game was sold with full price only so far and it's quite expensive. So, comparison with games which were on sales many time before are not truly valid (comparisons counting from release day show it better, though).
3. With the game clearly pivoting it's audience, old fans irritation is understandable and since most of the people who bought the game are old fans, this is understandable. And we'll not see the majority of new audience until first sales.
4. Competition landscape is something not be ignored. When Civ5 and Civ6 were released, 4X and turn-based games were out of favor and competition for playtime wasn't that great. Now we have games aiming at the same niche as Civilization and everywhere around. But funny thing is - such competition usually hurts playtime, but often increases sales as it brings more people from other games. This, also returns us to question of whether Civ7 will suceed on gaining new audience.

 

[VGT]

Player count shows only Steam players. We have contradicting articles on how well Civ7 performs on consoles, but with its heavy console focus, this part clearly can't be ignored.

I understand argument and it's a grim perspective for me. Because if they indeed are going for hard turn and want to gain a lot of new audience from various consoles, then civ7 is only beginning of hard shift away from PC-centric game which means me personally should already put a cross on whole franchise and look elsewhere.

The game was sold with full price only so far and it's quite expensive. So, comparison with games which were on sales many time before are not truly valid (comparisons counting from release day show it better, though).

I'm definitely referring to comparable time after release for civ6 vs civ7 where we know of significant dropdown. While ongoing comparisons of current playcount for civ5-6-7 is interesting, I agree that much longer lifetime of older titles is making those comparisons not that valuable. And can be used in both ways depending on what agenda of data presenter is.

With the game clearly pivoting it's audience, old fans irritation is understandable and since most of the people who bought the game are old fans, this is understandable. And we'll not see the majority of new audience until first sales.

Then here I think 2K will fail with those horrendous prices of DLC. You're not gaining new audience by having such high prices. I was buying everything civ6 day 1 and I didn't care what was the cost, but I'm having completely different approach when it comes to new IP for me. I bought base game of Rimworld only recently while knowing from many reviews over the years that it's a very good game and I knew I could successfully sink hundreds of hours into it, because I was very annoyed by pricing policy of it (no good discounts on sales and semi-pricy DLC's).

Competition landscape is something not be ignored. When Civ5 and Civ6 were released, 4X and turn-based games were out of favor and competition for playtime wasn't that great. Now we have games aiming at the same niche as Civilization and everywhere around. But funny thing is - such competition usually hurts playtime, but often increases sales as it brings more people from other games. This, also returns us to question of whether Civ7 will suceed on gaining new audience.

Something I didn't thought of and it's actually good argument. Looking at myself, I'm for example buying every DLC for Stellaris day 1 even though I'm playing it not that often. I'm buying them because when I occasionally play 1-2 campaigns there, I want to be up to date. But important requirement is for game to be considered good/great for me and me wanting to play it, just having different higher priorities at the time.

 

[user746383]

Their strategy was -intentionally- to sell high cost preorders to a group of people they knew wouldn’t end up liking it as their one last cash grab before ditching them, and then build a totally new audience of people who only buy games on sale? Seems crazy if true, though I guess I can see the perverse logic in it. In that case I really would be rooting for another studio to pick up the banner of civ-like games.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Their strategy was -intentionally- to sell high cost preorders to a group of people they knew wouldn’t end up liking it as their one last cash grab before ditching them, and then build a totally new audience of people who only buy games on sale? Seems crazy if true, though I guess I can see the perverse logic in it. In that case I really would be rooting for another studio to pick up the banner of civ-like games.

I believe they underestimated how much old audience will be disappointed. But I can't say they were hiding anything - we had a lot of gameplay info from both Firaxis and streamers to look at.

 

[0urBall]

When it comes to Civ VII, my feelings are 2K forced Firaxis to put it out before it was ready. It came out in February, which is right before the end of year Margin Call happens in March in the US. Gotta get that last bit of profit out if possible before the end of the Fiscal Year!

I think this is the key point and would hope that Firaxis are using the lukewarm reception/complaints about the state of the game when reviewing with 2K and saying "see, we told you this wasn't ready, and look at the results" 2K may not care about the quality of the game, but they will care if it starts to affect sales numbers/profits. At least until GTA comes out

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

"Civ fans, you're the best fans in gaming [but hey, guess what, we're going to alienate you in our quest to replace you with a new set of fans and if you hang around for the transition, great]" would be one way of reading what Firaxis have said/meant/done but I don't think it's correct.

I think where we are with Civ VII's reception is closer to cock-up than conspiracy - well intentioned best efforts at progress, perhaps with some corporate imperatives coming down from on high, that fell foul of:

• (bringing it back to Aelf's original post) a baseline dislike of change amongst the playerbase;
• (from my perspective) an overextension of what the devs thought they could get away with in a single iteration; and
• the perils of a rocky launch in today's social media/internet ecosystem.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think Firaxis were very clear about their focus on multiplayer, consoles and shorter games availability from the start. That was directly advertised when they introduced it. Surely, they couldn't say "some of you may not like it", but they understood it and didn't hide anything. And yes, many people disliked those changed right from announce (especially civ switching) and thus some of them just didn't buy the game.

I believe Firaxis underestimated how many fans will dislike the game, but I totally think they expected that some of them will. And Firaxis had really good communication about their game.

I don't see any conspiracy theory here. Everything what could be said, was said plainly.

 

[AD1730]

The previous 6 games were commercial successes. This one appears that it is not. One of my many issues with your argument is that you seem to frame all changes as having the same weight. Clearly, they do not. The argument that "people just don't like change" is over-simplistic and fails to account for the previous success of the franchise.

Each one of those previous games had many changes from the previous iteration. So, when the hypothesis of your post is "people just don't like change and that's why they don't like Civ 7" that fails to address what happened with the series overall. If your hypothesis was true, the series would have failed long ago and we would never have gotten close to Civ 7 being a reality.

The Civ 6 2.0 point is a straw man. I haven't seen people calling for that and you use it here to frame those you disagree with as obstinate Luddites who seek to sabotage Civ 7. Instead, frequently people cite the things are more of an evolution (commanders, lack of workers, city/town system, unique civics, etc.) as the things they like, because those things are within the boundaries of what is acceptable for the franchise. Without certain expectations and limitations you don't have a franchise, you just have a name you slap on things to try to sell it.

Prior to this entry, any explanation of the Civilization franchise would have included that you play as the same civ throughout the game. It was a core feature and Firaxis chose to mess with it. Many fans reacted extremely negatively, making discussion of Civ 6's art style look like child's play. This was a predictable result to anyone with an understanding of Civ fans. Apparently, Firaxis lacks such an understanding.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Of course, for the conspiracy theorists out there, look to the example of New Coke which was dumped in favour of original Coke after just a few months (those trusty IRRs sorting out what products should be pursued again). After the fuore and reversal, Coke's sales actually increased compared to their baseline and the company overtook Pepsi's market share, a position it's held ever since. So maybe Civ VIII will arrive in relatively short order and be hailed as a stunning return to a beloved formula and the collective relief and overdone press coverage will see it top even Civ VI's sales

lol

The thing is Firaxis hasn't replaced anything - you can still buy Civ V and VI on Steam at least! Wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a Civ VI sale later this year if VII still isn't taking off

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Prior to this entry, any explanation of the Civilization franchise would have included that you play as the same civ throughout the game. It was a core feature and Firaxis chose to mess with it.

They've messed around with core features in most iterations since at least IV - 1UPT, hexes, unstacked cities etc etc. I still maintain 1UPT is the biggest single change the franchise has ever had and they still haven't fully worked out how to cope with the implications.

 

[AD1730]

They've messed around with core features in most iterations since at least IV - 1UPT, hexes, unstacked cities etc etc. I still maintain 1UPT is the biggest single change the franchise has ever had and they still haven't fully worked out how to cope with the implications.

Disagree on how you characterize the changes. An explanation of Civilization to an unfamiliar person would have mentioned that it has tiles. I doubt people would have paid much attention to shape. Same goes for unit stacking. You would mention that there are units, I don't think whether or not multiple units can go on the same tile would get mentioned. You would mention that you make buildings and wonders and not go much beyond that.

So, the functional equivalent of what Firaxis did here would be switching from tiles to an open map of some kind. That would also get a very negative reaction.

 

[Krajzen]

I mean, the situation is quite difficult, but I have seen enough succesful processes of "engoodening" just as bad or even much worse received games to not lose hope. No Man's Sky is probably the most spectacular example, with the release version of the game being ridiculed and reviled for its pathetic amount of content vis a vis its ambitious promises (IIRC it had like 30-40% positive reviews on Steam in its early days), yet it still managed to slowly develop and become very highly acclaimed game today. In civ franchise the transition from civ4 to civ5 was borderline catastrophic, there was no steam back there but I'd warrant civ5 would also get 50-60% positive reviews back then, I even remember myself being afraid of the game being such down lol.

Obviously there is a retort to all of this, namely that such situations of selling skeleton and filling it with meat later shouldn't happen again and again over two decades of the industry, to which I have nothing beyond melancholic nod of agreement.

What ultimately matters is how many copies has the game sold so far, and how much will future DLCs sell. I have been stubbornly clinging to my oan estimates of civ7 at worst selling the similar amount of copies as civ6 and at best moderately surpassing them. So far I assume it's neither a huge success nor a great defeat from the financial point of view, just "sigh, could have been better" and not much can be done with such assumption.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The previous 6 games were commercial successes. This one appears that it is not.

No proofs so far.

One of my many issues with your argument is that you seem to frame all changes as having the same weight.

No, I don't. I clearly focus on how different changes are.

The argument that "people just don't like change" is over-simplistic and fails to account for the previous success of the franchise.

I don't make this argument either.