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
1 
Report this post
I'm waiting until there are at least 2 DLCs and a lot of patches - and a sale reducing the price to something reasonable. And there may be more profound reviews until then.
The question still remains whether or not Civ 7 is selling steadily enough to provide the revenue they need to make it profitable because I still doubt that it has sold enough copies yet to be out of the red.
We will only be able to know for sure when they start dropping the price. If the price remains steady for at least 6 months then sales numbers seem to be sufficient for them. If they start dropping the price before that point it's pretty much guaranteed that it was a failure.
Overall I'd say Civ 6 for the foreseeable future will remain the most popular 4x game though (in terms of player activity)
According to meta-datas, the game sold very well. Between 860.000 and 900.000 copies and is still in steam top10's best sellers of the week :
~861.5 k according PlayTracker
~883.9 k according to VG Insights
~903.0 k according to Gamalytic
And that's steam only. You have to add Epic and Console sales numbers.
It's not as good as Civ 6, but Civ 6 was an unexpected huge success that sold far more that the previsions. So Civ 7's sales number seems to be good. Not extraordinary, not a huge success like Civ 6, but fairly good :)
Out of the red or not, it's impossible to say because we don't know howw much they invested in it ^^
Civ 6 will probably still be more played that 7 during at least two years, like Civ 5 remained more played that Civ 6 until ~gathering storm's release.
Consoles have never been a good market for strategy games and the epic store on PC is where games go to die.
If 1 million in two weeks is a huge success, how could almost 1 million in three weeks (900k on steam and 100k on epic, let's say) be a big failure ? ^^; Even if the budget is higher, and even if the game sold less that Civ 6, it would be doubtful to call this a failure...
They gave away Humankind while Civ VII released with a price tag of 99$-129$ and blatantly copied the era system and culture switching from Humankind.
Sales do not determine a game's success. Just look at the others in this post and myself—they are playing Civ 6, yet they own the Founder Edition, as the user below my comment pointed out. I bought the game myself, and I’m already not playing it anymore.
I don’t judge a game’s quality based on its sales; that would be a bad approach. I’m not in a situation where I need to request a refund, especially since that would penalize the studio. I actually like this studio, even if I think this game is bad.
So, when I log in to play another game and check the hub, seeing this player count surprises or even shocks me. It has nothing to do with the time of day but rather the specific moment I chose to log into Steam. There were as many players on Civ 5 and double the amount on Civ 6.
If you double a budget compared to the previous game you need to sell more copies for the game to be successful. If the new game sells at a slower pace (therefore less) than the previous game while you have a higher budget that means you have a potential failure in your hand.
I cannot say for sure if Civ 7 is or isn't profitable as we do not know how much money they spend making it. But I'd bet money on the aspect that it cost (likely considerably) more to make Civ 7 than it did to make Civ 6.
You must be working for the government. If I was a company owner and any employee made a statement like that in front of me I'd fire them on the spot for being incompetent.
It's easy to take a sentence, isolate it, and take it out of context by omitting the rest of the comment to avoid any argument. I don't see the point of your intervention here if it's to provoke a conflict. Therefore, I will simply block you to avoid engaging in a childish debate with you.
High player counts justify continued support of a game and more DLCs, low player counts mean the support will be dropped shortly and the team starts working on another project. What matters to the publisher are the sales which have to be justified to the shareholders.
Yes, it is indeed active players who determine the future of a game. Another example: a game I bought in the past, Marvel's Avengers, had a notable initial success in terms of gross sales at its release in 2020, ranking among the best-selling games of its launch month. However, it was not a commercial success according to Square Enix's expectations due to its high costs and, more importantly, its inability to maintain a player base in the long term. Most players abandoned the game very quickly (far more than Starfield).
When it was announced in 2017 and during the marketing campaigns leading up to its September 2020 release, Square Enix and Crystal Dynamics heavily emphasized the idea of a games-as-a-service model:
* Evolving content: They promised a roadmap with free expansions, including new heroes, regions, and story arcs, at no additional cost to players (with microtransactions being limited to cosmetics).
* Central multiplayer: The balance of classes (or rather, heroes, like Hulk, Iron Man, Black Widow, etc.) was supposed to be refined to offer a rich and varied cooperative experience.
* Longevity: The game was meant to last for years, with an active community and a constantly expanding Marvel universe.
In the end, there was almost no new content, three playable new heroes, the game was removed from digital stores, and the servers remained active only for existing owners because, just six weeks after its release, 96% of players had already left. So, thinking that the number of active players has no impact on a company's decision-making is pure fantasy. I definitely agree with you on that.
Where I work (theme park) the attendance is down to the increased cost of living. Many people just dont have the slush money laying around that they had in years past. It applies to games as well. Especially if you have to choose a new game or paying your rent, putting food on the table or just paying bills.
Many game are released that need a couple of years to be fleshed out. As an example the X games X 1 thru X 3, then Rebirth, then again with X 4. So its not just limited to the Civ games.
The industry has done this to itself with unfinished games which are only completed years after the fact with DLCs which cost a lot at launch and cost little to nothing years after launch, or even come at a deep discount as they are bundled with a discounted title. This sets up the expectation that this will happen later in a title's life and not only gives absolutely no benefit to buying it at launch, but effectively punishes players who buy on day one.
As the last few Civ titles have fit this pattern, I expect this one to fit it as well, and therefore I would have to be a fool to waste my money buying it now when I will get what would cost literally hundreds if bought as content comes out for roughly $25 in a few years. It's not like I haven't got games to play. As a not-so-side benefit I can play the games I have now on my current potato at ultra settings (often at 4k!) and not need to spend hundreds more upgrading my PC again.
If people who paid their stupid launch price got all the DLCs forever and ever then maybe they'd sell a few more copies.