Delusional gamers

[AntaresRA]

I would like to know how many of gamers on here owns their own business ?

if they do, a question. Would you be happy that ur latest product have more then 50% of negative reviews? What would your Board say when you show them that more then half of reviews are negative and how do you approach this problem ?

for the people who are just mere workers, this aint for you keep on beta testing.

[Despiser]

I'm sure devs are aware people complain a lot more than they did a few years ago, much of it about trivial things. Still, they do their best to appeal to everyone over updates and DLC as they always did. What saddens me is games like BG3 that's basically a cluttered world rife with cutscenes encourage them to make more of the same. And no, it's not a stamp of approval for Civ 7, though I'm sure it will improve over time as it's predecessors did.

[Mountain Man]

Look at how other developers with supposedly "bad" games have reacted, like Bethesda with the excellent Starfield, or Blizzard with the outstanding Diablo IV, two recent games that had the fury of anonymous player reviews unleashed on them and yet have enjoyed strong sales and continue to be actively played by many thousands of happy gamers. When all is said and done, that's the only thing that developers and publishers care about.

[Swisspike]

Mountain Man a écrit :

Look at how other developers with supposedly "bad" games have reacted, like Bethesda with the excellent Starfield, or Blizzard with the outstanding Diablo IV, two recent games that had the fury of anonymous player reviews unleashed on them and yet have enjoyed strong sales and continue to be actively played by many thousands of happy gamers. When all is said and done, that's the only thing that developers and publishers care about.

The OP seems to think that 12k negative reviews is representative of the 900k player base. Clearly, they are not.

A vocal minority, with their own agenda. Only about 1.3% of the player base feels strongly enough about the game to give it a negative rating.

OF those 1.3%, many of them refunded, but are still active on these forums, attempting to convince OTHER immature h8ters that their self-fulfilling agenda is the correct one.

[Big Poppa]

The game is at 49 percent positive that means 51 percent didn't like it over half lol, for those who are not so good with math. Not trying to convince anyone of anything but that is the way math works.

[Swisspike]

Big Poppa a écrit :

The game is at 49 percent positive that means 51 percent didn't like it over half lol, for those who are not so good with math. Not trying to convince anyone of anything but that is the way math works.

Nope. It means 12 thousand out of 900 thousand owners. Nothing more or less.

[Inkidu]

AntaresRA a écrit :

I would like to know how many of gamers on here owns their own business ?

if they do, a question. Would you be happy that ur latest product have more then 50% of negative reviews? What would your Board say when you show them that more then half of reviews are negative and how do you approach this problem ?

for the people who are just mere workers, this aint for you keep on beta testing.

Well, I don't own my own business, I am just a proletariat. However, I do have a college education and part of that comes with knowing things that someone like you might find worthless. Things like philosophy, criticism, logical debate, and... a grasp of the English language.

You've fallen into a couple of classical traps. First you've not read the room and think that belittling your audience in an opening statement is a good idea. Second, you think that reviews are a direct cause of profits. This is that correlation versus causation thing that people have probably tried to tel you about in case you were curious. Lastly, you're arguing from a stance of grossly incomplete information.

So, basically I fear you've been looking at these forums and Steam reviews and think that the width and breadth of Steam reviews is the whole of the gaming market. This is called the False-Consensus Bias. It tends to lead people to think that something is far more prevalent or powerful than its. It's why people who hang around in political discussion forums of any stripe tend to think their chosen political affiliation is stronger or more pervasive than reality.

Because let's face it: The internet's not real life.

Before I get too far afield though, let me answer your question: First off, what I would have to do is wait for that quarter's earnings report. This is what businesses do. They have quarterly meetings called shareholder meetings and they take the collected data from sales and present it to the highest stock holders. Capitalism, catch the fever.

Anyway, what I would say is that since (and I know this is jumping the gun but as that's popular in this forum allow me to indulge too) no major news outlet has gotten some big scoop on the financials of what is perhaps the biggest strategy game franchise in the world, A well-read and grounded person would look to history and know that when you have these big profile financial flops Forbes or maybe Newsweek likes to opine on it. You know you've really got something if Jason Schreier is on the byline. Whether or not you agree with these things is irrelevant.

However, barring any of that I could point to the positively glowing reception it's gotten from publications on Metacritic and in games media. The bad user score is just people review bombing it, and on Steam. Well sure, there's a negativity bias, but clearly someone in an actual business could point out that despite the forty-nine percent rating, it doesn't really effect pre-orders and doesn't seem to have an affect on earnings. This would allow me to illustrate that negative Steam reviews are not an accurate measure of what the gaming public at large expects.

Because most Civilization buyers are not on these forums, most are probably just playing their game. Most don't ever leave reviews. I would point out that while you can point to huge profile flops like most live services that over their history strategy and more open-ended games that invite multiple playthroughs are primed for long, profitable DLC ventures and giving the public a roadmap of fixes and new content are going to do better in the long run for a game like this than some day one sales.

Also, I'd point out Civilization VII is the most pre-ordered game in the series and as there's again no big news story about mass refunding I think the board would be quite happy with the earnings. If they were reasonable.

The truth is, in this warren of late-stage capitalism there's always a better than not chance that the greedy executives at the top deem it a failure just because it didn't make Call of Duty money, or sell more than GTA 6.

So just know if the capital R revolution kicks off, you might want to not be so high and mighty about being a business owner who can't even spell your correctly. It paints a big old bourgeoisie bullseye right on your forehead.

Ain't nothin' what to get mad about, just some food for thought.

[Santa Klaus]

Swisspike a écrit :

Big Poppa a écrit :

The game is at 49 percent positive that means 51 percent didn't like it over half lol, for those who are not so good with math. Not trying to convince anyone of anything but that is the way math works.

Nope. It means 12 thousand out of 900 thousand owners. Nothing more or less.

Are you familiar with extrapolation? Have you considered that a mixed 49% (and falling) review score will deter future purchases?

[Big Poppa]

Santa Klaus a écrit :

Swisspike a écrit :

Nope. It means 12 thousand out of 900 thousand owners. Nothing more or less.

Are you familiar with extrapolation? Have you considered that a mixed 49% (and falling) review score will deter future purchases?

He probably has a math equation to answer that lol.

[Inkidu]

Santa Klaus a écrit :

Swisspike a écrit :

Nope. It means 12 thousand out of 900 thousand owners. Nothing more or less.

Are you familiar with extrapolation? Have you considered that a mixed 49% (and falling) review score will deter future purchases?

Thank goodness there's a fallacy for that.

Today's post is brought to you by the over-extrapolation fallacy. https://www.fallacyfiles.org/overxtra.html

You've literally taken one single set of data that represents only a portion of total sales and think it applies to the whole. Things are so underdeveloped with this game, people have so many axes to grind and the data set is so undefined that it's quite literally to in all caps:

TO TELL HOW THE GAME IS DOING BARELY A MONTH AFTER RELEASE BASED SOLELY ON STEAM REVIEWS.

It would be academically dishonest to the point of absurdity to take this one data set and extrapolate it to be representative of the playerbase as a whole especially when it's well-documented that most people generally never leave any kind of review and negative reviews are just more common with less provocation.

[Santa Klaus]

Inkidu a écrit :

Santa Klaus a écrit :

Are you familiar with extrapolation? Have you considered that a mixed 49% (and falling) review score will deter future purchases?

Thank goodness there's a fallacy for that.

Today's post is brought to you by the over-extrapolation fallacy. https://www.fallacyfiles.org/overxtra.html

You've literally taken one single set of data that represents only a portion of total sales and think it applies to the whole. Things are so underdeveloped with this game, people have so many axes to grind and the data set is so undefined that it's quite literally to in all caps:

TO TELL HOW THE GAME IS DOING BARELY A MONTH AFTER RELEASE BASED SOLELY ON STEAM REVIEWS.

It would be academically dishonest to the point of absurdity to take this one data set and extrapolate it to be representative of the playerbase as a whole especially when it's well-documented that most people generally never leave any kind of review and negative reviews are just more common with less provocation.

It's strange that it has to be continuously argued that Steam represents a large percentage of games sales in general and a much larger percentage for these kinds of strategy games.
It's also strange that there seems to be such dismissal, that somehow this being the worst reviewed CIV game has no effect or meaning for how the game is perceived now or in the future.

The player count of CIV7 has declined, it will continue to decline, the player count of CIV6 is significantly higher and will likely not change much as its an old game not experiencing a new game drop-off.
The base game review score is 49% and virtually every day since has been below that, indicating a continual downward trend, the DLC has released with a 15% score and hasn't reversed the downward trend of players or game reviews.

I'll also point out, again, the point that keeps getting ignored -- a yellow Mixed sign showing 51% negative reviews deters new purchasers from buying the game.

[Skull]

Why should I care? Having fun playing the game over a long period of time is what I care about with Civ. With this iteration it’s a lot different. It’s not like this is a live service game either so player count doesn’t really matter.

For example I don’t like Dragon Age the Veilgard but if someone else likes it that doesn’t affect me. I just won’t play it and wait to see if there’s another Dragon Age that’s better.

[ShadowDark3]

Swisspike a écrit :

Mountain Man a écrit :

Look at how other developers with supposedly "bad" games have reacted, like Bethesda with the excellent Starfield, or Blizzard with the outstanding Diablo IV, two recent games that had the fury of anonymous player reviews unleashed on them and yet have enjoyed strong sales and continue to be actively played by many thousands of happy gamers. When all is said and done, that's the only thing that developers and publishers care about.

The OP seems to think that 12k negative reviews is representative of the 900k player base. Clearly, they are not.

A vocal minority, with their own agenda. Only about 1.3% of the player base feels strongly enough about the game to give it a negative rating.

OF those 1.3%, many of them refunded, but are still active on these forums, attempting to convince OTHER immature h8ters that their self-fulfilling agenda is the correct one.

Actually, the real stats are quite bleak. Out of the ~7,000,000,000 people in the world, barely 0.0001% have even played the game, let alone left a review. Pretty sad that the vast majority of the world couldn't even be bothered to try the game.

[DeadSlash]

ShadowDark3 a écrit :

Swisspike a écrit :

The OP seems to think that 12k negative reviews is representative of the 900k player base. Clearly, they are not.

A vocal minority, with their own agenda. Only about 1.3% of the player base feels strongly enough about the game to give it a negative rating.

OF those 1.3%, many of them refunded, but are still active on these forums, attempting to convince OTHER immature h8ters that their self-fulfilling agenda is the correct one.

Actually, the real stats are quite bleak. Out of the ~7,000,000,000 people in the world, barely 0.0001% have even played the game, let alone left a review. Pretty sad that the vast majority of the world couldn't even be bothered to try the game.

You kinda won the thread with this. Well done.

[Audie_Murphy]

Swisspike a écrit :

Mountain Man a écrit :

Look at how other developers with supposedly "bad" games have reacted, like Bethesda with the excellent Starfield, or Blizzard with the outstanding Diablo IV, two recent games that had the fury of anonymous player reviews unleashed on them and yet have enjoyed strong sales and continue to be actively played by many thousands of happy gamers. When all is said and done, that's the only thing that developers and publishers care about.

The OP seems to think that 12k negative reviews is representative of the 900k player base. Clearly, they are not.

A vocal minority, with their own agenda. Only about 1.3% of the player base feels strongly enough about the game to give it a negative rating.

OF those 1.3%, many of them refunded, but are still active on these forums, attempting to convince OTHER immature h8ters that their self-fulfilling agenda is the correct one.

WELL SAID

[Audie_Murphy]

Big Poppa a écrit :

The game is at 49 percent positive that means 51 percent didn't like it over half lol, for those who are not so good with math. Not trying to convince anyone of anything but that is the way math works.

That is roughly half the people who WROTE A REVIEW. So now tell me, how many owners are there of Civ 7 who hadn't even written a review yet? The vast majority don't write reviews, they play the game.