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

[Marla_Singer]

I was not really arguing with your conclusion, I just stated the fact that it IS a pretty well established fact that fans will be skeptical about changes. I also think it's fair to say that the idea of what exactly constitutes the core of a game is not necessarily universal.

No matter what, I stick to my point that explaining failure by resistance to change is a fallacy. Good changes are embraced, bad changes are discarded. Otherwise we would all still be living in cave chasing mammoths.

 

[Skojardu]

I'm not saying it's a bad game. I'm just saying it's not a civ game to me. If they had called it Civilization Revolution 3, then it might have better reviews (because it would not sell as much as civ7). It's a juxtaposition of expectations. If Coca Cola company had called their new coke something else and didn't replace the old, then they would also be fine probably.

Is it not obvious to Firaxis that video games are not YouTube Challenges, and it strengthens the market to have different products instead of similar products with varying level of polish? It is an unforced error that Civ did not stay true to its "civilization to stand the test of time" unofficial tagline to stay in its lane. Coke sweetening their mix to approximate Pepsi's taste was a similar mistake - it removed consumer choice for a less sweet vs more sweet soda.

Old World is strengthened because it has such a different theme to differentiate itself from others. If it was called just "World" and tackled all history, not only would it have been more unwieldy, it may have gotten lost amongst its competitors: Civ 7, Humankind, Ara, Millennia

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Is it not obvious to Firaxis that video games are not YouTube Challenges, and it strengthens the market to have different products instead of similar products with varying level of polish?

Yes it is, they still sell Civ V and Civ VI ......

 

[stealth_nsk]

No matter what, I stick to my point that explaining failure by resistance to change is a fallacy. Good changes are embraced, bad changes are discarded. Otherwise we would all still be living in cave chasing mammoths.

Once again, this supposes fans are all the same, that's not true. Any change has some amount of resistance. The bigger the change - the more resistance it has. You could classify "good" changes as ones facing relatively small resistance for their scope, but it still be there.

P.S. Just to clarify, I'm not the person who explains Civ7 problems with resistance to changes, it's much more complex than that. But saying it's not a factor is also incorrect.

 

[tman2000]

Estimated total active Playstation users are about 130M, XBOX - about 200M, Switch - about 120M. That's 450M total. How many of them bought the game? Zero information. How many of them will buy the game with discount? Also zero information.

I don't think it's safe to assume anything. I found realistic number of current console sales to be between 100K and 10M, but it's subjective from overall market expectations, it's not based on any data specific to Civ7.

Why are you obsessed with this? After launch and trying it out, a massive portion of the core user base doesn’t like the game. What do you gain if a few console people like it? Why are you treating this like a court case?

And are we forgetting that the game would crash on PS5 for like a month after release? How could that user based possibly like the game?

 

[tman2000]

I was not really arguing with your conclusion, I just stated the fact that it IS a pretty well established fact that fans will be skeptical about changes. I also think it's fair to say that the idea of what exactly constitutes the core of a game is not necessarily universal.

I just wish we’d stop talking about this as if change and difference is the problem. The game is severely unfinished and has terrible issues with repetition and meaningless gameplay.

 

[Taefin]

I feel like this discussion is still gravitating toward “sales are low because big picture changes lost the soul of Civ and emulated failed games like Humankind”.

I have a hard time imagining that most potential customers got this far. I only know a few gamers, and they aren’t Civ fans, but they felt the excitement of the next iteration of a major franchise coming out, then immediately heard how the UI made the game unplayable for a lot of reviewers, and then moved on without giving the game another thought.

It’s up to 2K/FXS how to make a big enough splash when they get the UI fixed, maybe coupling it with the first expansion. But there is a good game waiting to be carved out of the many unfinished elements of VII that I am excited for.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Why are you obsessed with this? After launch and trying it out, a massive portion of the core user base doesn’t like the game. What do you gain if a few console people like it? Why are you treating this like a court case?

And are we forgetting that the game would crash on PS5 for like a month after release? How could that user based possibly like the game?

Obsessed with what? It looks like you keep reading something I didn't say in my posts. I was just replied to the question.

 

[tman2000]

Obsessed with what? It looks like you keep reading something I didn't say in my posts. I was just replied to the question.

Here it is again. Like you’re slippery and obsessed with dismantling negative opinions of the game by side stepping to other issues. Like you have an agenda and it’s not just your opinion. Not trying to start a fight just your line of argumentation in this thread is very disconcerting.

You do realize that stifling opinion formation won’t affect that people aren’t enjoying the game. We’re not paying $30 for your right to rule pack just because you’re hairsplitting on maybe some invisible console numbers out there prove that actually the game is great.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Here it is again. Like you’re slippery and obsessed with dismantling negative opinions of the game by side stepping to other issues. Like you have an agenda and it’s not just your opinion. Not trying to start a fight just your line of argumentation in this thread is very disconcerting.

I never dismantled negative opinions they are there. The things I'm saying are:
1. The only negative opinions we can count are those who left negative Steam reviews. But there are as many positive ones as there are negative ones.
2. There are negative opinions from people who didn't left Steam reviews, but that's true for positive ones too. We can't count either of them.
3. Every person has right to have negative opinion about the game, but claiming it as universal just don't fit the fact (previous 2 points).

If you disagree with any of these, I'd be happy to see your arguments.

You do realize that stifling opinion formation won’t affect that people aren’t enjoying the game. We’re not paying $30 for your right to rule pack just because you’re hairsplitting on maybe some invisible console numbers out there prove that actually the game is great.

Again, you assume I do something I don't. All I did in previous post is literally answered the question directed to me with the only facts I was able to scramble. I really don't understand what else you read there and why.

It looks like you try to paint me personally in some negative light for some reason, whether it's because I disagree with you, or you just dislike me?

 

[moondog385]

I don't think there's much substantive discussion going on here, but I could say that for all metacommentary about Civ7 and Firaxis and "the state of the series." All I will add is that I hope 2K allows Firaxis to stick with the game, improve its issues (which I feel are largely restricted to UI), and then add more content rather than scrap it all and start with a clean slate. Would feel like a total waste and slap in the face to be honest.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Otherwise we would all still be living in cave chasing mammoths.

We decimated the mammoths.

 

[Marla_Singer]

This is not what I would call clearly communicated. It’s oddly specific knowledge of business strategy.

I’m tired of triple A execs thinking that all video games have to be GTA online or Fortnite. I don’t know what’s going on with Wall Street that this requirement has been imposed on gaming. Civ would have had an audience and made money. It was never going to be Call of Duty

Thanks for revealing to us though that Civ 7 was ruined because it was designed to be a multiplayer console game for short attention span young people.

Oops looks like a turn based strategy game about history didn’t capture that audience

Sid Meier often mentioned that "short attention span young people" idea to justify his choices for shorter playthrough, but looking at the video game industry overall, it seems that most successful games are actually designed to be played many hundreds of hours. I don't think the incentives are market driven. Quite the opposite I would say the market promotes games designed for long playthrough.

 

[tman2000]

Sid Meier often mentioned that "short attention span young people" idea to justify his choices for shorter playthrough, but looking at the video game industry overall, it seems that most successful games are actually designed to be played many hundreds of hours. I don't think the incentives are market driven. Quite the opposite I would say the market promotes games designed for long playthrough.

Baldurs Gate

Elden Ring

 

[Yzman]

It hasn't even ended. An attempt at a reboot is coming out this year: https://store.steampowered.com/app/3105440/Heroes_of_Might_and_Magic_Olden_Era/

And Age of Wonders, which is like 90% the same game, has carried the mantle in the mean time.

Learning that one of my favorite series isn't dead and has a new game coming soon made this whole thread worth it to me.

 

[Ornen]

Estimated total active Playstation users are about 130M, XBOX - about 200M, Switch - about 120M. That's 450M total. How many of them bought the game? Zero information. How many of them will buy the game with discount? Also zero information.

I don't think it's safe to assume anything. I found realistic number of current console sales to be between 100K and 10M, but it's subjective from overall market expectations, it's not based on any data specific to Civ7.

the idea that console is taking a bite out of PC is just fundamentally not true. these are the facts (taken from here):

• PC has grown much more than console in the past 10-15 years
• PC game audience is now bigger than console audience
• Steam userbase has tripled in the past 8 years

so the idea that console release is taking a bite out of PC/Steam sales is nonsense when the Steam market is triple what it was when Civ 6 came out. you simply cannot discredit the Steam user numbers based on console when the Steam market has grown by so much.

fwiw I don't think this is the death knell of Civ by any accounts. I'd like to go deeper into where I really think the series is at (they're having hard conversations between Firaxis & 2K about where they take the game from here, in short) but I hardly think it's over. I just want to be clear about these very basic facts first.

 

[stealth_nsk]

the idea that console is taking a bite out of PC is just fundamentally not true.

I didn't say that.

I just answered a question whether we could safely assume that console sales for Civ7 are less than sales for PC. And the answer was that we can't safely assume that for Civ7.

The numbers for active players on various consoles are taken from Google as estimation of total market size. I didn't compare it to PC market and didn't use for anything other than answer I gave above.

 

[Gori the Grey]

From @Ornen's chart, though, the suits are going to see "oh, the real gain is in mobile; let's build a Civ such that people can play it on their phones!"

 

[queenpea]

From @Ornen's chart, though, the suits are going to see "oh, the real gain is in mobile; let's build a Civ such that people can play it on their phones!"

They did this already

Civilization: Eras & Allies

eras-and-allies-civilization.2k.com

 

[canadamufc]

We don't even know if that open world idea for Mario Kart is well executed as the game isn't even released, but no one is discarding it right from start. The thing is that Mario Kart becoming an open world doesn't change the core concept of the game which is about Mario driving a kart. Therefore what a Mario Kart game is expected to be is not altered. So yeah, I can hear that people have expectations when it goes about a sequel, but having expectations is something different than being resistant to change.

In fairness, this new Mario Kart still provides a classic option of just racing 3 laps on a track then clicking a button to move onto the next track. It gives an option for a classic mode. Civ VII does not have a classic option like this and forces you to change your civilization every time.