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

Status
Not open for further replies.
We're observing 1% of game owners on Steam leaving bad reviews and another 1% leaving good ones. The rest of the observations can't be counted.
if you really need to make that argument, you also need to reckon with this chart. 2 months after release, Civ 5 went had 33k, Civ 6 had 45k, Civ 7 has 20k.

so that's "the rest of the observations", they can be counted. fewer people are playing the damn game.

1744931843915.png
 
I can only see this being the end if Firaxis can't sell civ 7 and civ 7 DLC for 8 years like for civ 6.

It might be relevant here, because it'll definitely end this forum.
And we kinda don't like that... just saying.
Video games don't die, they just fade away. And considering there's activity in the civ 1 and 2 I don't think you have to worry for awhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
It might be relevant here, because it'll definitely end this forum.
And we kinda don't like that... just saying.
This forum already has threads and sections on Old World, Humankind, Ara, Millenia, Chess, etc. Whatever game takes over the 4X Historicalish torch from Civ, just rename the Forum, put Civ as one of the side-notes like those mentioned above, and keep right on going . . .
 
The thing is, we don’t know the financial situation for Firaxis. They could be solvent for a while even with a poor release, or they could’ve put all their eggs in this basket and face financial difficulty soon without increased player counts and DLC sales.
 
Firaxis isn’t an independent company. They are fully owned by Take 2 who have huge bags of cash. The question is more of Take 2 thinks Firaxis is a good investment compared to other things they might invest in.
 
2 months after release, Civ 5 went had 33k, Civ 6 had 45k, Civ 7 has 20k.

I get your point but 7 is closer to a 10k peak and falling.

But people can always say well, there are actually lots of people playing on some other place we can’t see, and they are really happy and leaving positive reviews on some site we haven’t discovered yet, and you can never really prove them wrong and they don’t seem to accept that it’s a kind of magical thinking.

I’d rather base my estimations on imperfect, incomplete evidence, knowing they might be adjusted later as other new evidence comes in, than hop on a one way ticket to imagination land even (especially) if it confirms what I wish were true.
 
Last edited:
I would add to the count "civ 6 release day/weekend/week playercount subtract civ 7 release day/weekend/week playercount" (because we don't have access to actual sale numbers, this is next best thing). I'm in that category.

Not every person that was there from day one with civ6 and didn't purchase civ7 hates it (to not get into projecting mode), but in my opinion (see? ;) ) it's most likely majority. Day one buyers are fans. One other option included in that count I can think of is migration to consoles, but I still don't buy that such PC centric franchise would have major drift of old fans in that direction.

if you really need to make that argument, you also need to reckon with this chart. 2 months after release, Civ 5 went had 33k, Civ 6 had 45k, Civ 7 has 20k.

so that's "the rest of the observations", they can be counted. fewer people are playing the damn game.

View attachment 729288
We're walking in circles. That's the 3rd thread where it was already explained in details while player count is not really relevant
 
It might be relevant here, because it'll definitely end this forum.
And we kinda don't like that... just saying.
4X genre is alive and kicking with a lot of fans so I would assume in case of civ demise they would jest spread across different existing and new titles. There most likely would no longer be massive leader in this genre as it is now. Something new would also most likely show up trying to directly replace it (I always like to bring SimCity -> Cities: Skylines scenario in this case). Unless what you're talking about is you losing your heart to continue this project with civ demise. In that case it's a bit different story.
 
Last edited:
We're walking in circles. That's the 3rd thread where it was already explained in details while player count is not really relevant
I hope you can see the difference between those two quotes? I'm referring to x days after release, which is in my opinion much more comparable. If you think it's not, we have to agree to disagree.
 
I hope you can see the difference between those two quotes? I'm referring to x days after release, which is in my opinion much more comparable. If you think it's not, we have to agree to disagree.
Yes, I know, it removes 1 out of at least 4 factors. Others stand, though.
 
For me I think there's an underlying question that hasn't been addressed which gets to whether or not the series has a future.

If Civ VII was released today, and wasn't the 7th version of the game, but instead the first. What would it be called? Because I strongly feel that it would not be called Civilization. Charitably, perhaps it would spawn a franchise called Civilizations. But I think it'd be called something more like "Through the Ages" or something central to the way the game switches each era.

In other words, I strongly feel that this is not a civilization game any more as they've changed what I feel is core to the civilization series DNA. I don't think theres anything particularly cynical in this, besides the fact that firaxis are required to churn out a new Civ game every few years. But this time, it's just gone too far off the rails for me.

I think this game would be better received if it was marketed as a first iteration of a new franchise of 4X games rather than a new entry in the Civ series. But then I don't think it would have sold as well without the name badge attached, looking at games like Millenia with similar mechanics as first entries to a game. As I say, don't think that factored in - I think it was just a case of "we have to make a new Civ" and "let's try this", with a disatisfying result.

So future of the franchise for me rests on them identifying what is central to their audiences perception of the core elements that make Civ Civ, capturing and maximising those, and tinkering with the subsystems to be innovative. OR recognise there's not much room for change after 6 successful iterations, support older games with more DLC and embrace the difference but with a different series title.
 
For me I think there's an underlying question that hasn't been addressed which gets to whether or not the series has a future.
Yes, that's the core point

If Civ VII was released today, and wasn't the 7th version of the game, but instead the first. What would it be called? Because I strongly feel that it would not be called Civilization. Charitably, perhaps it would spawn a franchise called Civilizations. But I think it'd be called something more like "Through the Ages" or something central to the way the game switches each era.
Maybe something about history, but yes, the name is less fitting here.

In other words, I strongly feel that this is not a civilization game any more as they've changed what I feel is core to the civilization series DNA. I don't think theres anything particularly cynical in this, besides the fact that firaxis are required to churn out a new Civ game every few years. But this time, it's just gone too far off the rails for me.
I disagree with the point, because while it would be named differently now, the name doesn't define the game literally. Should Assassin's Creed always include creed? How Final Fantasy could become a franchise if every game is supposed to be final? Etc. And Civ7 is still a game about civilizations, although they are less in focus now.

If we look at Civ7 innovations from pure gameplay perspective, they are less than Civ5. Civ5 brought tactical combat, creating entirely new subgenre within 4X. Civ7 age reset and civilization switch from pure gameplay point of view are just some powerful events having multiple consequences.

I understand that you're talking more about immersion than gameplay, that's why the name is mentioned. But immersion is always a subjective thing.
 
Yes, that's the core point


Maybe something about history, but yes, the name is less fitting here.


I disagree with the point, because while it would be named differently now, the name doesn't define the game literally. Should Assassin's Creed always include creed? How Final Fantasy could become a franchise if every game is supposed to be final? Etc. And Civ7 is still a game about civilizations, although they are less in focus now.

If we look at Civ7 innovations from pure gameplay perspective, they are less than Civ5. Civ5 brought tactical combat, creating entirely new subgenre within 4X. Civ7 age reset and civilization switch from pure gameplay point of view are just some powerful events having multiple consequences.

I understand that you're talking more about immersion than gameplay, that's why the name is mentioned. But immersion is always a subjective thing.

The name is important because in a lot of ways it is your shorthand to describe it. I think this is the first game in the series where the title doesn't fit, and I think that says a lot about why the reaction has been what it has been
 
We're walking in circles. That's the 3rd thread where it was already explained in details while player count is not really relevant

I guess it’s more the explanation is not convincing than going in circles. I think you have to find the place and show evidence where all these mysterious high player counts and positive reviews are, rather than just saying maybe they exist and we can’t disprove that they don’t. Or that the evidence we have doesn’t count because maybe there’s evidence we don’t have that would change things.

It’s not convincing to me that other games have reviews that seem accurate, but civ doesn’t because maybe all the people who didn’t leave a review just love it so much and we can never prove this isn’t the case so it must be true. And actually 10k peak on PC is a huge success because maybe everyone is playing VR and we just have no evidence so why not assume it’s true. Or just appeal to nothing being knowable.

This is what I don’t find as a compelling argument, I guess others as well.

In the end though it may not be relevant for this thread, which was about how if we don’t believe in fairies, er Firaxis, hard enough they will cease to exist.
 
Last edited:
But it doesn't leave current market either, just extend. Yes, extending that way weakens position on SP PC market, but Firaxis hoped for gain in the end.

P.S. Also, it's not a wild strategy. Actually when market leaders grasp on shrinking market hearing their customers requests, they very often lose. There's a book "The Innovator’s Dilemma" about it (and many following books and articles)
I'm not really sure how it was a shrinking market when Civ VI was by their best-selling game in franchise history.
 
I get your point but 7 is closer to a 10k peak and falling.

But people can always say well, there are actually lots of people playing on some other place we can’t see, and they are really happy and leaving positive reviews on some site we haven’t discovered yet, and you can never really prove them wrong and they don’t seem to accept that it’s a kind of magical thinking.

I’d rather base my estimations on imperfect, incomplete evidence, knowing they might be adjusted later as other new evidence comes in, than hop on a one way ticket to imagination land even (especially) if it confirms what I wish were true.

Yeah, I think it's pretty un-deniable that the PC numbers are not in a great place right now.

I do think though when discussing the state of the franchise, as the thread was started about, there's a lot more at play. Yeah, I doubt the VR sales are saving the franchise, but the numbers none of us have even come close to speculating are console sales. Is it 10k copies? 100k copies? 1m copies? 10m copies? We know they put a lot of effort to get console sales and users, so for all we know, there's more players playing civ 7 right now than were playing civ 5 or 6 at the same points after launch, just that people are playing on different platforms.

Or maybe they're not. Again, we don't really know. But at least in terms of anecdotal evidence, I feel that reddit does seem to have a lot of threads and pictures from console players, it's probably almost 50/50 to PC. Now, again, how that translates to sales, we don't know. Console civ users are probably newer, so maybe post more questions. The console versions have been buggier, so maybe they need to post more as well. Or maybe just age, demographics, etc... can lead to more posts there.

On the whole, give they are probably around 1m PC game sales, when you add it to the console sales, I don't think that Firaxis will have lost enough money from the release to go out of business tomorrow. It might be hurting the top level executives, and that might have an impact on what kind of runway is possible for future products.

But, that being said, this release to me feels a bit like the civ 5 release. In that it came with a rocky start, changed a lot of pieces, and had some controversy in what they changed. But then like we saw with civ 5, Gods and Kings basically brought it back from the dead. There's certainly enough in the civ 7 core that it's not impossible for a similar fate.

But, on the flipside, with a rocky launch, they have probably lost the history and goodwill. The only reason the game is probably eking out as a commercially viable product is because they have fans that were willing to spend 70$ or 130$ based on the franchise track record. If they decided to cut their losses, close up civ 7, and announce civ 8 is coming out in 2 years (or 4 years or whenever), I doubt you'd see quite as many people lining up to pre-order. If they come out with a meh expansion, and ratings continue to be mixed, you might get the execs a little more wary of committing 20m or 50m or 100m or whatever the development budget is for the next game that they have to front before they can get some of that back with pre-orders.
 
I guess it’s more the explanation is not convincing than going in circles. I think you have to find the place and show evidence where all these mysterious high player counts and positive reviews are, rather than just saying maybe they exist and we can’t disprove that they don’t. Or that the evidence we have doesn’t count because maybe there’s evidence we don’t have that would change things.

It’s not convincing to me that other games have reviews that seem accurate, but civ doesn’t because maybe all the people who didn’t leave a review just love it so much and we can never prove this isn’t the case so it must be true. And actually 10k peak on PC is a huge success because maybe everyone is playing VR and we just have no evidence so why not assume it’s true. Or just appeal to nothing being knowable.

This is what I don’t find as a compelling argument, I guess others as well.

In the end though it may not be relevant for this thread, which was about how if we don’t believe in fairies, er Firaxis, hard enough they will cease to exist.
I don't see which argument you try to dismantle here. We have 4 of them:
1. Point about older games being sold longer and with discounts. This argument could be removed if we compare Civ7 with data on previous games when they were released, but that way the difference becomes much smaller.
2. Point about much bigger focus on consoles and unknown number of sales there. So far we have 2 articles on ehich and they provide quite opposite info, but the one which talks about sales paints Civ7 as console success.
3. Point about Civ7 focusing on new audience which will be seen only after sales. That one is theoretical, because even Firaxis can't count it at the moment. But logically it should have some effect.
4. Point about competition landscape being different and thus number of simultaneous players per sale should be much lower. The first part of the argument is pretty objective, number of turn-based games increased a lot. The second part is theoretical, but, again, logical and based on observations.

In general the viability of those arguments depends on what we're trying to prove with them. I don't claim Civ7 is a commercial success, because none of the arguments provide any exact numbers. What I'm claiming is - there's not enough data yet to claim Civ7 is a failure, because there are too many unknown variables between current number of concurrent players on Steam and future commercial success. And here those arguments totally work, because they are examples of those unknown variables (and just the most obvious ones).
 
I don't see which argument you try to dismantle here. We have 4 of them:
1. Point about older games being sold longer and with discounts. This argument could be removed if we compare Civ7 with data on previous games when they were released, but that way the difference becomes much smaller.
2. Point about much bigger focus on consoles and unknown number of sales there. So far we have 2 articles on ehich and they provide quite opposite info, but the one which talks about sales paints Civ7 as console success.
3. Point about Civ7 focusing on new audience which will be seen only after sales. That one is theoretical, because even Firaxis can't count it at the moment. But logically it should have some effect.
4. Point about competition landscape being different and thus number of simultaneous players per sale should be much lower. The first part of the argument is pretty objective, number of turn-based games increased a lot. The second part is theoretical, but, again, logical and based on observations.
Just to be sure because maybe I misunderstood recent discussion, but here and now we didn't try to agree if game is successful or not. For this your points are standing. We tried to count dissatisfied players. And in that case:
1. I already said that I believe comparing release date numbers is valid.
2. I also answered this already:
One other option included in that count I can think of is migration to consoles, but I still don't buy that such PC centric franchise would have major drift of old fans in that direction.
3. Giving the same argument as for 1 - fans are buying day one, which shows how many fans were lost
4. Counterargument about how I described my buying habits with Stellaris:
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.
Even though competition landscape is more crowded, I'm buying more even though I'm not playing all of them on the same level.
 
Last edited:
Just to be sure because maybe I misunderstood recent discussion, but here and now we didn't try to agree if game is successful or not. For this your points are standing. We tried to count dissatisfied players. And in that case:
1. I already said that I believe comparing release date numbers is valid.
2. I also answered this already:

3. Giving the same argument as for 1 - fans are buying day one, which shows how many fans were lost
4. Counterargument about how I described my buying habits with Stellaris:

Even though competition landscape is more crowded, I'm buying more even though I'm not playing all of them on the same level.
That's another thing we discussed here. You're talking about old fans, but they aren't and can't be primary focus. Old fans numbers, by definition, don't increase, they could decrease only. The grow is in gathering new fans and the question is how successfully Civ7 does this. And 2 of those arguments are in this context:
- Console players are audience which Civ7 clearly targets and we don't know how successfully
- New players rarely buy games on full price, they mostly do it on discounts. So buying patterns should be totally different from much more conservative Civ6 and somehow different from Civ5, which didn't target new audiences with its changes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom