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

[Gori the Grey]

I think that it might be good enough to convince a decent amount of people already

Well, I've been mulling over this thread and two others, and I'm going to give an answer that draws on all three and speaks to all three. The two others are the one asking about value for your money and the recent review by Brandon Sanderson (whom I'm clearly supposed to recognize but do not). I'll start with that video. In it, he counts up the number of games he's played (four), says that the first time he played all the way through the modern era, he won, even though he was playing on deity, and therefore he is done with the game. He's not a "hater." He clearly loves the franchise; he even thinks changes in Civ VII are promising; he gives his opinion without any vehemence (in fact, he's multitasking by putting signatures on offprints of some sort). But he's a man who clearly has other ways he could spend his time, so if Civ VII on the highest level isn't going to give him a challenge, he's done.

Now over to the value-for-your-money thread. The answer I've been developing for that thread is that I have impossibly high standards: that my money should purchase me infinite replayability (like buying a chess set, say). But that those standards have been met (and probably established in the first place) by the two Civ games I've played (III and V). Civ V continues to interest me precisely because I can lose. I play at deity. I win maybe one game out of ten. And that keeps me going back: "If I'd only managed my economy better, I'd have won that last game; next game I'm putting a special focus on economy, dangnabbit."

The net result of these reflections is my response to the quote above. If they had a free weekend, and I beat the game on deity during that free weekend, I would never bother buying the game. There was one poster here who reported winning his first game, playing on deity, and then went on to list shortcomings of the game. My response was that he didn't need to say anything more after that first point.

That one thing they should for sure fix before they offer a free weekend.

Among players' dissatisfactions with the game--ages, civ-switching, bad UI--no challenge occasionally gets mentioned, but I don't see how it isn't the biggest gripe.

 

[Core Imposter]

The issue of price never registers with me. It just matters if the game is worth my time. The Grey has hit the nail on the head. But I liked the idea of all the drama of drug fueled design imperatives and staff bloodletting and sabotage. Somebody could make a game about making a game; it could easily be better than the current iteration.

 

[tman2000]

Not at all. It's pretty standard to have -20 or -30% reduction after half a year at one of the big sale actions (e.g., Summer, Christmas). There are some exceptions (e.g., Baldur's Gate 3 with its lauded release or Cities: Skylines 2 with its very rocky release), but many games (incl. civ competitors Humankind, Ara, and Millennia) went down 50% in their first year.

Apples and oranges. Humankind launched for $50 and especially the other two are more like indie games trying to nip at the heels of the giant.

Civ charged for a premium, well-produced experience. Lowering the price as an admission of a waning audience and failed launch would be a betrayal of people who paid $70+.

Again, listen, a lot of people are trying to find every little excuse they can for why the game actually is doing fine. That's fine. I don't think it's controversial that regardless of what some optimists think, the mood of the general audience would react poorly to an early price cut. It would basically be seen as Take-Two giving up on the game and admitting defeat as a cynical act that signals that seriously players should just abandon the game and not expect it to get better.

I'll reiterate that the only thing that will save the game is:

1. A formal apology
2. A substantial investment to fix the game without charging the existing audience

There's room to make expansions and money off of them from there.

Alternatively, there are models where they could just abandon the game but still make money off of it. As I have said, this would involve releasing mod tools and then selling DLC in the form of asset packs. Basically, you're not buying Edo Japan for gameplay reasons, but in order to have the 3D models that people are using in mods and the like.

If I were Take Two, I'd admit defeat, release mod tools, and then do a business model releasing art/asset packs.

They could keep a skeleton crew that does weekend events like compile certain mods together in an official event download and host servers to play those mod sets and pair with community rewards and social media attention. Then, the most popular mods and scenarios could be packaged as an expansion, where the popularity is proven from a long-simmering community driven effort.

I'd happily play Civ 7 if certain changes were made, and I'd happily mod those changes in, but it's almost impossible to make meaningful changes to Civ 7 since some of the effects are hard coded into the C++ rather than being built into game script.

Yep, if I were Take Two I'd admit defeat formally. "Hand over" the game to the community with actually good mod tools (these might actually be difficult to produce), and then charge money on art assets rolled out over time. Even new leaders. Blank canvases basically.

 

[tman2000]

Yep, if I were Take Two I'd admit defeat formally. "Hand over" the game to the community with actually good mod tools (these might actually be difficult to produce), and then charge money on art assets rolled out over time. Even new leaders. Blank canvases basically.

$20 for 3 leaders.

$20 for 2 civ art styles.

Then it's just like "you're buying the 3d model at this price". And it is what it is.

Like I said, they can retain community managers who piece together mod packs for community events. So when they release a Henry V model the community will paint his gameplay effects and the most popular will get integrated into a standardized download for some weekend thing.

 

[VGT]

If I were Take Two, I'd admit defeat, release mod tools, and then do a business model releasing art/asset packs.

Is there game out there with such business model? Because while in theory it does not sound that crazy, after thinking about it for a minute - it is. Sounds to me like you know thing or two about modding, so you might be in your bubble, but I think a lot of players don't use mods. In Civ5 there is an achievement "download a mod" and 24% of players have it. And if my memory serves me well, I think it triggered for me when playing a scenario/tutorial or something like that. You can't sell assets packs as DLC because for majority of players this will sounds like rip-off when they buying something that even does not add anything to the game unless you also active some mod.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Let's keep it short:
If a company considers the problem isn’t the product but the customers, then the real problem is the company.

 

[tman2000]

Is there game out there with such business model? Because while in theory it does not sound that crazy, after thinking about it for a minute - it is. Sounds to me like you know thing or two about modding, so you might be in your bubble, but I think a lot of players don't use mods. In Civ5 there is an achievement "download a mod" and 24% of players have it. And if my memory serves me well, I think it triggered for me when playing a scenario/tutorial or something like that. You can't sell assets packs as DLC because for majority of players this will sounds like rip-off when they buying something that even does not add anything to the game unless you also active some mod.

Yeah, it would be a major admission of defeat.

They could integrate modding with a like creators' club or something. I don't mean the predatory business model. Just build the mod menu into the vanilla game and create a system that lets people download from their console or in-menu. You would split the ecosystem into semi-official mod packs, and free-for-all modding.

I don't know, isn't Roblox sort of like this? Kids use it, so it seems to work fine.

It's just, I don't think there is a fix for Civ 7. Not one that makes sense in terms of investing in a dev team to make specific, universal changes, and then produce something that people will buy at a price equivalent to the investment.

Turn the game into a sandbox for the community, curate the popular modes, then charge money directly for assets to expand the sandbox. The pricing calculations would be much easier since you're translating an art team's labor directly into a supply-demand intersection.

They could go nuts doing an Atlantis or Lord of the Rings asset pack. Like, who cares if it fits in the game. The game is just a hex-based 4x sandbox that the community is messing with.

 

[AD1730]

Is there game out there with such business model? Because while in theory it does not sound that crazy, after thinking about it for a minute - it is. Sounds to me like you know thing or two about modding, so you might be in your bubble, but I think a lot of players don't use mods. In Civ5 there is an achievement "download a mod" and 24% of players have it. And if my memory serves me well, I think it triggered for me when playing a scenario/tutorial or something like that. You can't sell assets packs as DLC because for majority of players this will sounds like rip-off when they buying something that even does not add anything to the game unless you also active some mod.

That's what Starfield basically is at this point. The problem is that a game has to earn a modding community by offering a quality vanilla experience or something unique that captures a cult following. Bethesda felt that it was entitled to a modding community just because it was Bethesda.

 

[AD1730]

The issue of price never registers with me. It just matters if the game is worth my time. The Grey has hit the nail on the head. But I liked the idea of all the drama of drug fueled design imperatives and staff bloodletting and sabotage. Somebody could make a game about making a game; it could easily be better than the current iteration.

The amount I care about price rises proportionally with the amount of things I find objectionable in the game.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I genuinely get that impression. Like, we have the rumor which sounds reasonable of the entire UI team quitting. I've had a theory that in order to remove them from the post-launch bonuses contract, they had to scrap some percentage of their work. That's my most reasonable explanation for why progress might have been lost (and I don't like the theory it doesn't fully check out).

Still, the game is so unfinished and underbaked, with very easily fixed things (like the HMS Revenge) coming out wrong because apparently there just wasn't enough time. What's with the rush? What takes so long? If they had to rebuild everything from scratch it starts to make sense.

The UI rumor guy did say that the senior devs came back from a "research trip" and mandated a complete reworking of the game, so maybe there was a very late scrapping of what they had.

I have to be careful because the mods don't like us talking about the devs, so I'm referring to a development process overall not necessarily any individuals, but this point I want to make is honestly necessary context to even discuss this. The rumor mentions a redesign coming as the result of an Ayahuasca trip. Even the rumor was vague so let's just say that a hallucination somewhere somehow produced a game design vision and management supported the vision.

If you know about neural regrowth with psychedelics, often one is left with the impression of epiphany because formerly pruned neurons are reconnected - formerly discordant concepts gain apparent connection within mental perception. That doesn't mean the ideas actually connect. Compare to having an epiphany in a dream, waking up, and then as you try to sort out the details of the idea they don't really connect that well.

Ayahuasca is pretty powerful, so I could imagine - from the point of view of the creative process - a grand vision that ends up just not connecting well once it's implemented in real life. What this would lead to in terms of development is you're taking pieces that just aren't fitting together, and abandoning the "grand vision" at the last minute to just get out anything that sort of kind of works.

To me, this explains the development best. A powerful commitment to a grand vision at the last minute. No actual details to connect or realize the vision, and a lot of walls you run up against. A last second scramble to build a viable product with what you have.

It also explains why the "vision" needs things like very boring looking maps, extremely tight growth rates that have already been abandoned. There was an effort to realize, I think, the perfectly balanced multiplayer match. To simplify things so you won't need tooltips or a UI, and reduce the game to basic trade-offs and tactical decisions that roll over into consequences 40 turns later that decide the "match". The "Civ World Summit" being the epitome of what the game is meant to accommodate.

And.... it just didn't come together that way.

It makes sense to me because there's almost a clear vision in the final product. I can see how religion might have worked in theory, and then cool things like religion not being relevant in the Modern Age but leaving a thumbprint and legacy. Better implemented, that might have been really cool.

It seems like the implied game systems, like a better religion or better explorer/artifact system would have been cool had they had better implementation. However, more detailed implementation derails the "perfect multiplayer match, optimized minimalist UI for console players" thing. They're clashing, and that clash - the failure to anticipate it properly - I think is something that could be explained by psychedelic use. In my opinion.

If I had to guess, I think the game was originally going to have more narrative events, more fleshed out legacy paths. I think the Army Commanders skill tree was from the "more fleshed out" phase of development, as the tree's more unique upgrades barely get used right now. The UI rumor was discussing how the UI team had a ton of breakthroughs in how to portray certain information efficiently, but their ideas were shot down because of not accommodating console players well enough. So, I think Civ 7 was originally going to be more complex, within the general bookends we can already see. What I wonder is, was each age a little different in the original premise? Were the ages "standardized" (made repetitive, i.e.: tier 1, tier 2 of building types)? This, and the poor legacy paths (explorers, missionaries etc.) are what make the game fail IMO. If things were more fleshed out, and each age worked differently than the preceding one fundamentally, down to what buildings do, then I think the game would be better.

The final product plays like someone was given a blueprint for that grand vision and one month to just make something that runs. I can't explain this whole situation otherwise. Well, you could have had something like the UI team spitefully deleted game files or something as they left and development had to restart. I find that theory doubtful though.

I also can't explain the sentiment that the game is fine, that it's a matter of opinion, or all civ games launch like this, or some people just can't accept change. I don't understand those sentiments because the game is very clearly trying to be something, and is very clearly the minimum viable implementation of that thing.

Anyway, long post, but I'm wary of this narrative locking in that "all civ games are like this, people just don't like change, well the antiquity age is amazing and patches are fixing the rest". No, there's a huge story here. There's something that needs explaining, and getting that explanation has to be part of the narrative for this game or yeah, the series might end.

I just wanted to say that this may be the greatest post I've ever read on these forums. I love the theory that the senior devs got so tripped out on an away day they forced a redesign that ruined the game, and I also love that we don't really have a better explanation for what we're seeing.

So regardless of reality this is my new headcanon. I will not be convinced that this didn't happen - it's the only thing that makes sense any more about this game to me

 

[pokiehl]

Fantasy-based natural wonders have been in the series since they were introduced in Civ 5. I like them a lot, Bermuda Triangle being my favorite.

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah, it would be a major admission of defeat.

But a formal apology . . . wouldn't be?

Like, this all very strange, and true to form really demonstrating the worth of the OP in making this thread. The sheer amount of buy-in on vague conspiratorial thinking that has barely shreds of evidence supporting said thinking is wild, compared to the amount of buy-in on any other kind of trust-based argument. It's one thing to not trust the developers, or the product they've put out, or both. It's another to buy into things that nobody can prove because it furthers the undermining of the developers in the public eye, vs. "I don't like what they've made".

We know you don't like what they've made. These opinions are and have been well-stated, repeatedly.

So we're spitballing. Okay. I understand that line of thought. We're trying to speculate; to find justifications for what we think happened.

Which would be fine, except, there's zero open-mindedness for any other explanations (however mundane, or boring, or seemingly defensive of the developers). The buy-in is only evidenced in theories where it is shown the developers have made a colossal series of ego-driven mistakes.

Isn't that strange?

 

[tman2000]

I just wanted to say that this may be the greatest post I've ever read on these forums. I love the theory that the senior devs got so tripped out on an away day they forced a redesign that ruined the game, and I also love that we don't really have a better explanation for what we're seeing.

So regardless of reality this is my new headcanon. I will not be convinced that this didn't happen - it's the only thing that makes sense any more about this game to me

Regardless, for me the elements that stand out are:

1. The game feels rushed as if they had to build out most systems from scratch at the last minute, almost none of them very fleshed out. Lots of needless bugs, etc.
2. There's clashing design vision. Legacy paths and narrative events on the one hand, under realized and under baked. A tight, repetitive, ostensibly balanced competitive mode on the other.
3. The level of rush and lack of finish is also at such an extreme it does feel like there had to be a very severe reboot of development. It's that the parts which were rushed seem not only rushed, but as if they were thought up at the last minute as well. Like there's 4 years of development missing.

So, a reboot that abandons design threads but leaves others in. Locking in on a concept to the neglect of the overall product, then meeting a deadline that forces you to work with what you got leading to a poorly realized version of that concept, along with last-minute implementation of the abandoned design threads.

To be fair, the "poorly realized vision" seems at least 60-80% of the way there. The repetitive progression trees, the fact that reaching tier 3 buildings and units effectively coincides with final rounds - these are well informed, well thought out design premises. It's just that the vision overall didn't come together. Again, this reinforces the locked-in concept. They wouldn't have wasted their last year of major development if their concept wasn't at least coherent and somewhat impressive in theory. It just was something that wasn't going to come together.

Yeah, that's how this game makes sense to me. Otherwise I have to go down the BGS rabbit hole and ask what these devs actually do all day and is it work. Well, I'm sure they work hard so there had to be some other unfortunate clash of vision and reality.

 

[0urBall]

Personally, my boring corporate theory is 2K set a hard date for Firaxis to release the game regardless of the state it was in, thought they could just replicate the life cycles of 5 and 6, but underestimated the impact of the changes (era transition and civ switching). To me, they're a big a change as 1UPT was.
Now what? I doubt an apology would achieve anything, (and it's as much 2K that should make one as much as Firaxis) and as others have said if they chase new players with deals they could lose the early adopters who shelled out for the pre-sale editions.

 

[AD1730]

Personally, my boring corporate theory is 2K set a hard date for Firaxis to release the game regardless of the state it was in, thought they could just replicate the life cycles of 5 and 6, but underestimated the impact of the changes (era transition and civ switching). To me, they're a big a change as 1UPT was.
Now what? I doubt an apology would achieve anything, (and it's as much 2K that should make one as much as Firaxis) and as others have said if they chase new players with deals they could lose the early adopters who shelled out for the pre-sale editions.

Sadly, most major 4X franchises have trained their audiences to not buy early. Once you get through the initial FOMO, it's easy to just keep waiting for the best price. Thus, not only is the poor release state of these games anti-consumer, it's also just bad business that cuts into profit.

 

[tman2000]

Moderator Action: quote removed -lymond

An apology is an admission of lost trust. There's been lots of discussion in other threads on business pricing strategy. It's not easy to just pair up supply and demand and a lot of pricing is tied to the relationship a company has with its customer base.

Price structures being what they are, Firaxis can't just pivot to an indie game pricing model, which is what their abuse of trust would now require to keep selling content to the community. So, in order to maintain something close to their business model, they need to address the lost trust, then follow up with results.

In order to get people to keep paying $30 for bi-annual DLC, they need to make major substantive improvements to the game. Unfortunately, if they go to the trouble to do that, many people might not realize the level of investment and effort they've put into the fix.

Thus, the apology is a basic marketing play to define the current status of the relationships between company and customer, to set expectations for the direction the company is taking the product. By apologizing they would be framing their intentions for the product. So, it's not as simple as an apology, but an apology would be a minimum necessary step if the game is ever going to go in the right direction. If you apologize, you immediately create just enough goodwill for the audience to pay attention to your effort to fix the game and even restore optimism and support for the effort. Then, you have to actually fix it.

I don't think it's wrong for people who enjoy entertainment products to be invested personally in them. If it was wrong, then what are we doing even having entertainment products? The next step in logic would be to "just touch grass and stop being a computer nerd that plays dorky computer games". I don't agree with that. I think it's fine to take things that receive hard earned money and provide value and a little meaning in a bleak world somewhat seriously.

Also, something did go very wrong in development. There's no reason to ignore a compelling explanation for why. There is no other explanation for why the UI is garbage and I don't think I have to just shrug and accept that "there are four lights" because a company wants to profit off gaslighting and ignorance. Want me to spend more money on the next DLC or game? Help me understand why you screwed up so hard on this game and give me some reasonable assurance that it won't happen like this again. Anyway, sure, they don't owe us that. We don't owe them money either. Ideally, it's not like that. Ideally there's trust and the game can be a community thing that we enjoy while they profit, everyone's happy. That doesn't work when they make major mistakes and pretend everything is okay then claim it's none of our business.

I mean, who owns this game now? The 5000-8000 people still playing it who would have the rest of us go away and stop talking about uncomfortable things? Or the 200k+ people who would have wanted to be part of this game and community, but need to offer informed feedback that will shape and clarify demand and lead to a better product? If the company won't apologize or acknowledge the problem or even allow some sort of leak to assign blame or anything, then we are forced to speculate. That or walk away.

Well, I'm still replying in one or two active threads but as I've said I'm not making any new ones. I've got the message that the people still here don't want the rest of us here. I guess the people still playing basically do own the game. I think I'll stick around for the Take Two financials and see if there are any announcements. Then I guess go off on my merry way.

 

[tman2000]

But a formal apology . . . wouldn't be?

A formal apology would be a marketing strategy. I don't mind the cynicism of that concept because the business-consumer relationship has room for that. It's a signal from them that they acknowledge the scale of the needed change, and therefore I as a customer will grant them my sincere attention and hopefulness to see if they follow through on the change.

Otherwise, I'm going to just have to ignore them and move on to other hobbies and leave my attention elsewhere. Maybe me personally, I will pay more attention than the average person, but the average disappointed fan will benefit from hearing a sort of apology. It has to pair with the solution though, and I'm not sure Firaxis is done thinking through what comes next.

This is very different from just dropping active development.

 

[tman2000]

The sheer amount of buy-in on vague conspiratorial thinking that has barely shreds of evidence supporting said thinking is wild, compared to the amount of buy-in on any other kind of trust-based argument. It's one thing to not trust the developers, or the product they've put out, or both. It's another to buy into things that nobody can prove because it furthers the undermining of the developers in the public eye, vs. "I don't like what they've made".

A good mindset to address your point would be to imagine if Jason Schrier releases and article that more or less confirms the entire thing.

If that article came out, how would your statement change?

The issue is not whether something is proven or not. It's whether, if a thing was true, how meaningful would it be relative to the substance of the discussion? The burden of discussion isn't with the burden of proof of somewhat reasonable information posted online. The burden is on Firaxis for overcharging for an unfinished game, or even allowing the game to get to that point. They created the situation. The burden is on them. They created the conditions that force people into such a state of confusion that somewhat incredible explanations end up making a lot of sense.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to wonder what's going on. To take what information we have and do the best with it. If Firaxis is upset that we're buying into rumors, they shouldn't have botched development so badly. We do not owe them some sort of due process of law or whatever. That's a very corporate culture mindset.

Businesses hate their workers and they hate their customers. We both demand things and are unpredictable.

 

[AD1730]

A formal apology would be a marketing strategy. I don't mind the cynicism of that concept because the business-consumer relationship has room for that. It's a signal from them that they acknowledge the scale of the needed change, and therefore I as a customer will grant them my sincere attention and hopefulness to see if they follow through on the change.

Otherwise, I'm going to just have to ignore them and move on to other hobbies and leave my attention elsewhere. Maybe me personally, I will pay more attention than the average person, but the average disappointed fan will benefit from hearing a sort of apology. It has to pair with the solution though, and I'm not sure Firaxis is done thinking through what comes next.

This is very different from just dropping active development.

Treating entertainment products like any other widget is incredibly foolish business strategy and is often what gets publishers in trouble with their customers. Entertainment products are designed to create emotion. Thus, the customer will develop more of a connection with entertainment products than other types. This connection means that an apology of some sort would mean more for this sort of product than others.

 

[Gorbles]

A formal apology would be a marketing strategy. I don't mind the cynicism of that concept because the business-consumer relationship has room for that.

Have you considered that others might mind?

If you're open to such strategies, was the decision to prioritise things like the UI, and move planned DLC further back, not similar examples of good strategy? Do they deserve recognition, or not?

A good mindset to address your point would be to imagine if Jason Schrier releases and article that more or less confirms the entire thing.

If that article came out, how would your statement change?

Schreier is a very well-connected and informed journalist, whose pieces often take time and (meticulous amounts of) research.

Naturally, if something like that came out, it'd change my opinion. But it wouldn't make the wild predictions of now suddenly accurate in retrospect. When I guess correctly at work, I'm still guessing, and it's important I recognise that. Being right by accident doesn't mean I understand the thing I guessed correctly about.

But it's an interesting kind of thought experiment. What if it came out that Firaxis had nothing to do with anything bad that happened with the game (barring subjective disagreements over what constitutes good design), and that the rushed nature of the release came entirely down to publisher meddling? Would that change your general opinion?