The END?

[Kahn]

Game seems already dead..... low player numbers, many negative ratings. What do you think?

[Mountain Man]

Nope. Civ VII is alive and well and will continue to be enjoyed for many years.

[TheCr33pur]

Hard to say, will take them a year or longer to improve this since alot of fans are upset with it. Glad i didnt buy it, i remember back in those days when you see a game in department store or online, mostly finish and be able to play it.

Now players or fans are losing hope with this company and doesnt really feel like previous Civilization from the past. And again, too much hardware demands and gamers arent going to be happy with that.

I doubt if i buy this game, wasnt impress with the previous Sid's Civ. But my favorite is third, fourth and fifth series. Third is more classic, while fourth is more realistic and now the fifth is different setup that has remove stack of doom.

If they kept it simple allow much larger map such as playing the world Earth, can be done with a modern PC. Now everything is crammed in small areas and with too much hardware demands, will lose interest pretty quick.

My all time favorite is Destiny, an old Civilization game before Call to Power. Call to Power II is pretty good too, until get hit with a lawsuit and cannot go forward with their designs.

[brouillardd]

Just like VI at the start. Just like V at the start. And I suspect IV too, but we were buying the CDs then and there weren't ways to track that data. Relax. This thing grows, expands, and morphs for years. Like baseball, it's a long season.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by brouillardd:

Just like VI at the start. Just like V at the start. And I suspect IV too, but we were buying the CDs then and there weren't ways to track that data. Relax. This thing grows, expands, and morphs for years. Like baseball, it's a long season.

This is nothing like Civ VI at the start.

Civ VI at the start really only had two large issues for most people: the UI was bad (but not nearly as bad as Civ 7, which didn't even launch with notifications for a settlement being attacked), and districts.

Civ 7, on the other hand, is 3 mini-games with age resets, has a total mix-and-match approach to leaders and civs, is selling leaders separate from civs for DLC so that players are nickel and dimed, is heavily curated, is compartmentalized (religion basically only exists in Exploration), and is going to nerf anything you did that isn't ageless whenever there's an age reset.

I own the game. I enjoy parts of the game.

But I wouldn't say that Civ 7 is on steady ground at this point. The odds keep tilting towards further development being halted when I see a bunch of announcements that focus on advisers and cross-play. There are still key things to shore up and yet they've moved to the minor QoL and polishing-up type stuff already.

[z3rk]

I wouldn't say it is dead, but I'd say that it will be somewhere by the end of the year, and i don't think they even have any idea how to turn it over at this point.

It is hemorrhaging players on par with Civ Beyon Earth, after 4 months Civ BE had peak of 7.9k players with Civ 7 having ~8.5k (and Civ BE was released 10 years ago with significantly smaller market and big patches days peaked at 37k and 36k vs almost no change in player number for 2 big Civ 7 patches).

Civ 7, according to VG insights, which we might say is a golden standard of game metrics, states that they have sold ~1.2million of copies (Civ BE sold 2.9million altogether with 1.8million in first 4 months). It is nowhere close to the initial sales of Civ 5 and Civ 6 (not overall because obviously they've been released longer, initial),
Another, 'genre-killing' flop with very similar sales was DA: Veilguard. It is rather bad outcome for the AAA release

On top of that, add disastrous reviews and even worse DLC reception. There is hardly any room for bouncing back, or at least, i don't see one.

So, it did not and will not go out with a bang, it will slowly but surely fade away, with such tempo, ~5k players in another quarter and flatline somewhere at 1.5k-3k players by the end of the year. It might get a brief restart with 1 expansion that i'm sure they'll implement but, as with Civ BE, it won't change anything.

But ofc i can be totally delusional and wrong, but the markings are there, all you have to do, is take a look.

[TigerRus]

Dead. Now uninstalled. Dreadful game

[Lancer VI]

This will be the very first civilization game that I DO NOT buy and I've owned and played since Civ I on Dos when it was released in 1991 at Software Etc where I worked.


Not only is the game dead; so is the franchise.

[Minnesota Ray]

And yet there are still a few misguided fools, like me, who enjoy playing it...

[dicemanrick]

It was dead for me long ago. Deleted it from computer after 10 hours of "play".

[Fleetwood]

Originally posted by Mountain Man:

Nope. Civ VII is alive and well and will continue to be enjoyed for many years. :104:

By who? You've had 85 hours on record since making a similar post 2 months ago. Looks like you only log in to make sure the new $5 leader pack you bought installed correctly. You know your profile is visible to the public, right? Everybody knows you don't play Civ VII. The question is why do you continue to lie about it? Do you think you're doing Firaxis any favors by claiming to play and enjoy a game that you never play?

[harqalada]

I don't think it's dead. But it's obviously not doing too well, either.

Now, Civ games have a sad and lamented tendency to release in a, shall we say, less than stellar state. This one very much included. Other games in the series have bounced back from that, stabilizing and somewhat increasing player count after 1-2 years. It's possible this one will do that as well.

And I hope it does, if for no other reason than it will make the prospect of a civ 8 for me to play in a decade or two more likely. As it stands, the Ages system as it is implemented breaks the immersion for me. I tried for 90 hours, so I gave it more than a fair shot. But it's not for me, I'm afraid.

Declaring it dead is, I think, a little premature. But when it has less players than 5 as well as 6, and is still generally declining (even after the much vaunted big update), it is very obviously not doing great, either.

Take-Two seems to think I/we will just come around and start to love it later on. I understand that hope, to a degree. And some people might. But as long as the Ages system is still here, it won't be me.

[jorgen_cab]

It is not dead... but they will never be able to fix it no matter what they do as most people are upset with core changes they can't roll back on.

This game will just have a much smaller following and in general that is not a problem, but it will likely not become anything like it's predecessors and it may hurt Civ 8 when that is done.

If they are unlucky the franchise will become permanently hurt, which is sad.

[wcbarney]

Originally posted by Kahn:

The END? Game seems already dead..... low player numbers, many negative ratings. What do you think?

With so many negative threads already posted on this forum, why on earth did you think we needed another one? Go back and read my review -- it is not negative.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by jorgen_cab:

It is not dead... but they will never be able to fix it no matter what they do as most people are upset with core changes they can't roll back on.

This game will just have a much smaller following and in general that is not a problem, but it will likely not become anything like it's predecessors and it may hurt Civ 8 when that is done.

If they are unlucky the franchise will become permanently hurt, which is sad.

This is true.

If someone doesn't like mixing and matching leaders and civs, or if they don't like the age resets, well, there's not really any way around that stuff. It's permanently there, because the whole game is balanced around the age resets happening. There's no way to make it so you can play one civ all game, because every civ is designed for that 33% of the game that they currently exist in. All the civs would be a blank civ for over half the game if you could stay on one civ.

But like I've said on countless threads, the people who are still playing, like me, may finally be pushed away by the DLC. The DLC pricing is absurd, and would remain absurd even if the game was an all-time great game. But it just, well, isn't. It's a decent game IMO, but not worth paying $4 or $5 for a single leader at a time.


EDIT:

The quote below is something else to add-in, here:

Originally posted by harqalada:

I don't think it's dead. But it's obviously not doing too well, either.

Now, Civ games have a sad and lamented tendency to release in a, shall we say, less than stellar state. This one very much included. Other games in the series have bounced back from that, stabilizing and somewhat increasing player count after 1-2 years. It's possible this one will do that as well.

...

Take-Two seems to think I/we will just come around and start to love it later on. I understand that hope, to a degree. And some people might. But as long as the Ages system is still here, it won't be me.

This isn't like Civ 5 or 6, which were thread-bare at launch but had the same bones and foundation the series has always had. Those games had their launch problems, but nothing like this.

And at this point, if Take-Two doesn't understand that a lot of players are never coming back to Civ 7, that's bizarre. I would seriously hope they realize at this point that Civ 7 has not gone well. Whatever the initial sales of the base-game, the DLC after the first two 'collections' that were in the special editions will probably not sell well.

[cheetah1546]

If anything it's still in the beginning of being fixed for a few years.