Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
9 
Report this post
If Civ 8 returns to its roots (think: the whole New Coke/Coke Classic marketing fiasco of 1985), then it'll probably recover just fine. It doesn't even have to go all the way back to Civ III/IV -- they could pull another 6 out of their butts and it'd be fine for most (though I think we can all agree the more realistic art style is the way to go over the cartoony version).
But if 8 is 7 pt. 2, it is, as the kids say, joever.
In fact, the only Firaxis game which has been actually rescued from flopping in this manner, is Civ V. "Beyond Earth" still flopped with or without DLCs, CIV VI was considered a very complete base version, so there was nothing to save. What else?
And yes, many have commented too that, while Humankind isn't the best 4X out there, its ideas were better implemented over there, in the source game, than here in the clone.
Its a pity, but you, as a developer, probably understand how important is having a clear vision of the project before starting to code. And they failed in the crucial step of adding ideas to paper.
Was Civ:BE a financial disaster though? Development costs would have been minimal (compared to full Civ versions) as it used the same LORE engine as Civ 5, and initial sales were reasonable.
Judging by peak player counts and drop off, sales (on PC) of 7 appear to match BE quite closely - so 7 is undoubtedly a financial disaster. In the current climate, Firaxis might not get the opportunity to redeem themselves - especially as Take Two Interactive have a $5billion hole in their finances according to their end of year report, and Civ 7 didn't exactly receive glowing praise in the Q4 earnings call.
Who knows. Maybe some series veterans leave, go indie with a new company and then develop a brand new 4X. This is another way they can more than redeem themselves. I doubt that the entire Firaxis staff is to blame for the series problems, most likely a part of them do understand the design philosophy and enjoy all of the games themselves.
As a developer yourself, you should know better than that.
Your first point is all that you needed to say.
I'll never play Humankind, but I'd be willing to bet that it's a completed game. Civilization VII is half of a game. They won't finish it for two years. Not until the two expansions are released will anybody be happy with it.
Even then there will still be prophets of doom like yourself lingering in the forums, telling the world that it's over. There just won't be as many.
This is not a video game series that you want to bet against. I'm not a Firaxis fanboy but common sense tells me that the future of this game will prove you wrong.
Jeopardize this game's entire future and completely tank Civ VII? That is the last thing that's going to happen to this game. Civ VII's player base will be back on top two years from now. Posts like yours will be completely forgotten. And you'll act as if they were never written.
Two years is a long time. Some folks will be dead by then.
And those people don't even know it.
For the record, I'm enjoying playing. And as a player since CivI I've seen all the typical whinging from all the same types every single new release.
Having said that, I really shouldn't have to be exposed to an incomplete game. I shouldn't have to sit here waiting for two majoe (paid?) expansions to make it a "completed" game. That, to me, feels shameful and intentionally deceitful. It's not like I'm complaining about EA, this is a completed game as far as Firaxis says.
But again, I'll buy the expansions as I don't game much (CIv series and Rimworld pretty much all I play consistently) and manage to enjoy it despite the annoying bits (I hate the forced end and forced culture changes.. but *gasp* I'm alive, mostly becauses I have a life and gaming isn't it).
But your comment is quite damning if you ask me. :)
https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/2025-best-selling-games/2900-6281/#:~:text=2025's%20best-sellers&text=It%20only%20trails%20the%20current,Wilds%20and%20Assassin's%20Creed%3A%20Shadows.
This is being generous, actually, to Civ 7.
The stuff HK attempted didn't work... and HK was years earlier.
So they not only took those mechanics and ran with it, but implemented them in a game that already has a lot of expectations. HumanKind was a totally new game, with no series behind it, so whatever the (many, many) faults of HK, those poor design decisions there at least didn't fail to meet expectations since there weren't any.
Then Civ 7, the seventh game of a long-standing series, looked at HK flop years earlier and said 'yeah, let's do that, that worked well for that game'.
So, the quote is kind of off IMO:
HK *didn't* have expectations at launch, which made it less egregiously bad that it had some poor design choices/mechanics. And it didn't have a clear vision... it never figured out if it wanted players to actually be able to only go after a set or two of fame stars, or if it wanted to force them to get all the stars possible. It never figured itself out.
Civ 7 meanwhile, yes, did have its own fanbase (with their own expectations) which was shocked at the changes. But the changes hadn't worked in HK, either, which is a sign of staggering ineptitude on the part of Firaxis, 2K, or both.
TL;DR -
HK is probably more forgivable... when it launched, Amplitude was making a new game/series. They didn't know it would flop with those design choices, maybe.
Civ 7 is far less forgivable, because Firaxis took a look at HK flopping and decided that was the way to go. Even with the benefit of several years since HK's launch, they couldn't figure out that doing largely the same thing with a much more established series would fail.
This comment clearly shows what I've been saying elsewhere. Civ VII is not universally disliked. There are still those who truly and unambiguously like the game. Sadly, that lack of consensus on what is wrong with it, also makes its fundamental problems even harder to fix, even if Firaxis still enjoys the infinite pacience of the community two years from here. They made a mistake in dividing their player base with a polarizing design... by doing that, they essentially shrunk it.
The ranking is deceptive. It's ranked on dollar sales and not copies sold, so a more expensive product is weighted higher and Civ 7 was quite expensive if you wanted early access and DLC - founders edition at $130. The only thing I get from this chart, is that it had a higher revenue compared to older games. Civ 7 couldn't outperform newer games per the chart you posted.
If a AAA game sells 100,000 copies at $130 they get $13,000,000 revenue.
If a AA game sells 200,000 copies at $40 they get $8,000,000 revenue.
If a indie game sells 300,000 copies at $20 they get $6,000,000 revenue.
According to that revenue chart, the more expensive "AAA" game will rank higher. The indie game would rank lower given the cheaper price, even though it sold more copies. Take Two themselves didn't even post the copies sold at their latest Take 2 Quarterly Earnings call on May 15. They barely even talked about Civ 7 and quickly moved on. That's an indicator the game did not meet their own sales projections when corporate does not even mention them.
(You can find the transcript here.)
https://www.take2games.com/ir/quarterly-earnings
Civ 7 is now at 37% recent negative reviews and 7k average concurrent players. Quick Mountain Man! Tell me why this is actually good news!
Well.... I don't had played CIV7 (even if I had buy the deluxe version), but I had played HK.
For what I had read, there are (mainly) two major problems here:
1. The culture swap is forced, while in HK is optional (you could paly as the Babylonians, for the all time, if you really wish to). In CIV7 case, it make the mechanism frustrating, as you don't have an saying in the process.
2. The previous cities you build (in the previous era) become useless, once you go to the next one. While in HK, they are still cities, which mean that strategic placed cities, stay strategic points.
So long term strategies, are severly harmed, in the case of CIV7, here.
Edit: corrected syntax errors
I agree, and Humankind indeed managed this stuff better. But the people playing Civ VII now, even when they aren't that many compared to the ones still playing the older games, honestly believe its the best game in the franchise ever. And Firaxis can't risk alienating them or making them angry, by introducing radical changes into what they already like. These players are all sure buyers of the future DLCs, while the game critics might not come back to Civ VII anyway.
This is what I meant by "shrinking the player base".
Now the remaining 50 customers don't want to go back to the original ingredients and the other 50 want the original ingredients or won't go back to your restaurant ever again. Civ VII in a nutshell. Common sense would tell you to redesign the menu to serve both types of customers, but common sense solutions are seldom found in the corporate world and this is how we end up with the Civ VII dilemma.
37% Recent Mostly Negative reviews
48% Total Reviews
Amazing.
Good analogy, but I think that a middle ground solution, at this moment, is not as easy to deliver as it seems. The game is such a radical departure from Sid Meier's original design in some ways, that trying to please both group of fans might end up pleasing nobody.
I think the best and safest strategy, would be to simply polish-to-shine what the game already is. That might be enough to convince at least a part of the skeptics to carry over to the new Civ, and accept it as the latest release of the franchise. But not all.
Firaxis already has this player hemorrage, and all they can do is to contain it the best they can. And the thing is, no matter how you look at it, the formal project was faulty before even the coding started. For the same reason the OP stated here: lack of vision.