Firaxis any% studios shutdown speedrun.

[Trixt]

Xcom3 better be a giant sucess or this studios will fall. Civ7 is done, pull the plug. 6k online.

[Esau]

XCOM 3 is never being made. They more or less do not want to make it, and the talent that worked on the first two are gone as well.

[Rhapsody]

Still 60 times more than some other 4X civilization builder?

[Trixt]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Still 60 times more than some other 4X civilization builder?

Yeah with 500 times the budget.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by Trixt:

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Still 60 times more than some other 4X civilization builder?

Yeah with 500 times the budget.

Got any source for that?

[SpitfireMkVIII]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Originally posted by Trixt:

Yeah with 500 times the budget.

Got any source for that?

No, but we can infer, can't we? We'll use Old World for the comparison.

Old World's only SKU is on PC. Civilization 7 has SKU's for PC, Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S and the upcoming Nintendo Switch 2. There's also that VR/AR/Meta thing that I don't quite understand, but I'm sure is expensive too. Suffice it to say, that's a lot of co-development to get all versions of the game on the same page.

Old's Developer Mohawk has somewhere between 7 - according to their website[mohawkgames.com], and 50 - according to their LinkedIn[www.linkedin.com]. Their website admits to relying on (sub)contracting to "get the job done", so I'm inclined to believe the smaller number.

Firaxis, meanwhile, supports a team between 201 and 500 employees according to their LinkedIn[www.linkedin.com]. Their company page[firaxis.com] doesn't directly mention a team size, though I found its studio pitch and links to the Baltimore tourism clip remarkably endearing.

All this to say that Civ7's budget was likely an order of magnitude greater than that of Old World's. "500 times" is likely hyperbole, but remains a valid point.

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Still 60 times more than some other 4X civilization builder?

Don't think I didn't notice you including that "civilization builder" qualifier; because if we're looking at 4X in general, we both know that Hearts of Iron IV is blowing all Civ titles out of the water[steamcharts.com]. Say nothing of Stellaris, Crusader Kings III and Europa Universalis IV as well. It's funny... When most of those games came out, Paradox wasn't much larger[www.statista.com] of a company than Firaxis.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by SpitfireMkVIII:

"500 times" is likely hyperbole

That's kinda what I was getting at yeah, a greatly exaggerated number, and likely beyond what its user is aware of.

The number of employees isn't the best indicator for budgeting... some games and companies put far more money into marketing than actual development. And "500 times" is big number here anyway unless it's applied to the smallest of the smallest indie games, and I'm not sure if the relevant strategy games being name-dropped here fall in that category.

Originally posted by SpitfireMkVIII:

Don't think I didn't notice you including that "civilization builder" qualifier; because if we're looking at 4X in general, we both know that Hearts of Iron IV is blowing all Civ titles out of the water[steamcharts.com]. Say nothing of Stellaris, Crusader Kings III and Europa Universalis IV as well. It's funny... When most of those games came out, Paradox wasn't much larger of a company[www.statista.com] than Firaxis.

We indeed do know this, and I made the distinction intentionally. HoI is a very different beast from Stellaris and Civ. The whole process of nation-building and exploration in EU and CK is so different from Stellaris and Civ as well, I'm not sure I'd put them side by side here. But if anyone feels like it'd serve a purpose... well, why not, go ahead, I might be interested in hearing why exactly too.

At any rate, I respect going through the trouble of looking stuff up and sharing it.

[Trixt]

The exact budget for Sid Meier's Civilization VII is not publicly disclosed in available sources. Game development budgets, especially for major titles like Civilization VII, are often kept confidential by developers (Firaxis Games) and publishers (2K). However, some insights can be inferred from related information:

- Development Context: Civilization VII was in development for approximately nine years, significantly longer than the four years for Civilization VI. This extended timeline suggests a substantial investment in development, likely involving hundreds of developers, as noted by Firaxis creative director Ed Beach, who mentioned "hundreds of developers" working on the project

- Industry Standards: As a AAA strategy game, Civilization VII likely had a budget in line with other high-profile strategy or 4X titles. For comparison, AAA game budgets in recent years often range from $50 million to over $200 million, depending on scope, marketing, and development time. Given the franchise’s prominence and the long development cycle, the budget could be on the higher end of this spectrum, though this is speculative.

Without specific figures, it’s reasonable to estimate that the budget for *Civilization VII* was likely in the tens of millions, potentially exceeding $100 million when including development, marketing, and additional content like DLCs, based on its scope and industry trends. For precise details, only Firaxis or 2K could provide authoritative figures, but such data is rarely released.

Not a lot 4x devs play with that kind of money.

[ParabolaWaVe]

The player numbers are very worrying. Even last year, Steam active players for Civ 6 stood between 60,000 and 70,000. Now, more or less 24,000. Civ 7, with less than 10,000 active players, can't be accounted for all the players who have ceased to play 6, and seemingly have left the series.

Civilization as a franchise is probably damaged. I think after this release, many players have just gave up on everything Civ related, not just on this particular game.

[TigerRus]

Originally posted by ParabolaWaVe:

The player numbers are very worrying. Even last year, Steam active players for Civ 6 stood between 60,000 and 70,000. Now, more or less 24,000. Civ 7, with less than 10,000 active players, can't be accounted for all the players who have ceased to play 6, and seemingly have left the series.

Civilisation as a franchise is probably damaged. I think after this release, many players have just gave up on everything Civ related, not just on this particular game.

Totally agree. Civ 7 is doing more harm than good.. This will prob be the last 4x land builder for a while. If im being totally honest we should never had have yet another retelling of the story of earth.. . Its tired. 30 years plus is enough for anyone

They should have done a Beyond earth or Alpha. Civ 6 is a great game but even for me it was one too many and always stuck to civ 5

[Arkiuz]

Civ 7 is an unmitigated failure. The development team is stagnant. The publisher wants to push culture war agendas. The studio heads can't even be bothered to speak plainly, choosing a forked tongue and some pronouns over actual success. Failure is just another mark against their floundering leadership and, again, Civ 7 is an unmitigated failure.

Good riddance is all I'll say when the studio collapses. Hopefully, we'll see someone that actually cares for the IPs of this game pick them up. Or someone with a business sense comes in and guts the leadership roles. These studios need to stop existing on our goodwill.

[ParabolaWaVe]

Originally posted by TigerRus:

If im being totally honest we should never had have yet another retelling of the story of earth.. . Its tired. 30 years plus is enough for anyone

They should have done a Beyond earth or Alpha. Civ 6 is a great game but even for me it was one too many and always stuck to civ 5

I second that. I think a thematic new spin on the formula was much more needed than this experiment on Twitch friendly mechanics. Playing BE, despite its shared ground with the mechanics of 5, is arguably a much more refreshing experience than this game could possibly be. And I enjoyed it more than even Civ 6 to be honest. It had the adventure and the narrative direction just so well achieved, while the game was a lot more focused on those. People saying that it was just a "reskin" of Civ 5 are parroting a really dull, mediocre take which is missing the point of that game, in my opinion.

Space is an excellent theme for 4X. Because once you take the game to space, anything becomes possible. Its very unrestrained, you can let the creativity just run free with ideas and features. And there's little competition... there's Stardock for instance. But the GalCiv series, while decent, have its own design problems and it doesn't quite lives up to its own potential.

And if not space, maybe a fantasy Civ. Like Total War did, with the Warhammer license. But redoing an historical Civ, while putting in on rails, was pretty much the worst possible idea for a videogame.

[SpitfireMkVIII]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

The number of employees isn't the best indicator for budgeting...

More mouths to feed, pure and simple. How else would you like to infer the game's budget?

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

...some games and companies put far more money into marketing than actual development.

Marketing grows awareness, and awareness helps grow customers. If Civ7 suffers from anything, its certainly not lack of marketing. Regardless, it's more than fair to include the "Marketing Budget" within Civ7's total development cost; as this whole discussion revolves around low-budgeted games not garnering the same number of active players as high-budgeted games.

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

...And "500 times" is big number here anyway unless it's applied to the smallest of the smallest indie games, and I'm not sure if the relevant strategy games being name-dropped here fall in that category.

Don't misunderstand me, friend. The only name I dropped in regards to, and I quote "some other 4X civilization builder" was Old World. My references to Paradox games were made simply to poke fun at your devious use of the aforementioned qualifier.

We've already agreed that "500 times" the budget is hyperbole. That said, Civ7 likely remains the highest budgeted game to have come out from this genre in recent years; certainly more than Old World (from who I assume you drew your '60 times more' player base reference).

I suppose you could throw Manor Lords in with that original discussion, though I don't know enough about that game or its developer to form a valid comparison.

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

We indeed do know this, and I made the distinction intentionally. HoI is a very different beast from Stellaris and Civ. The whole process of nation-building and exploration in EU and CK is so different from Stellaris and Civ as well, I'm not sure I'd put them side by side here. But if anyone feels like it'd serve a purpose... well, why not, go ahead, I might be interested in hearing why exactly too.

I grouped those games together because they were made by the same developer: Paradox. Further, when the bulk of those games came out, Paradox had nearly the same number of employees as Firaxis. Funny, then, that they enjoy so many more active players from their multiple mainline games than Firaxis does from their one (two, technically, if you want to reach back to Civ6). Must be that Swedish work ethic, no?

Edit: The tl;dr of it is: Firaxis had 9 years and (most likely) more than a hundred millions dollars, and all they really had to do was top their previous title. They're not doing it in reviews, they're not doing it in active players, and they're certainly not doing it with good will.

[Ultimate Sadistic Creature]

Depends on how much was spent on it and 2K's patience.

Civ 7, at a minimum, underperformed. And its post-launch retention is nowhere near where they would like it (whom they can sell overpriced DLC to).