How well is Civ 5 selling

[Ming]

It's really silly to be considering Civ V "the worst of the series" at this point in time. I would have voted Civ IV the worst of the series a month after it's release (well, maybe not, I really hated Civ III) but now, I feel it's the best.

As long as they keep supporting the game, it will just keep getting better, just like Civ IV did. I think I will wait before making any final decisions on the value of Civ V. Even with the flaws and stupid AI, I'm still having fun with it, and that's a good sign to me.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

yes, well I voted for Civ Rev as the worst ...

while I personally do not have much hope with V, and am continuing to enjoy playing IV... it is not the end of the "series" ie MOO3 , the game is still interesting enough so that new players can have fun... I have a bit more trouble understanding how experienced Civ players can have fun with V, but I guess that is possible, probably a lot depends on your play style...

[jnh140]

This is the thing with civ: everyone has a "favorite" of the series, and from that perspective, everything else "sucks." For example: I like civ II the most, and still run Test of Time periodically. I despise civ 3. Civ 4 I found passable and somewhat enjoyable, but I was the kind of person who detested the silliness of the "combat" system. Civ 5 I enjoy; not as much as civ 2, but more so than 3 and 4. Other people will disagree with me. Thats fine. The beauty of the civ series is that each game can stand on its own (except civ 3) and remain playable for years and years and years. So I don't really care about the extremely vocal people-- for some reason I suspect the very vocal and angry folks are the same ones who log on cnn.com or youtube.com, and post inflammatory political and religious comments.

[Ming]

Yep... people will ALWAYS have DIFFERENT opinions. However, I find it silly that people are trying to compare Civ V to "finished" games.
Here we are 6 weeks after launch, a few patches under the belt, but still years of further developments before it can honestly be compared to any of the other games in the series. Plus, everybody seems to be forgetting about how bad some of the other Civ games were at launch. There is some real revisionist history going on

[SandMonkey]

This is the thing with civ: everyone has a "favorite" of the series, and from that perspective, everything else "sucks." For example: I like civ II the most, and still run Test of Time periodically. I despise civ 3. Civ 4 I found passable and somewhat enjoyable, but I was the kind of person who detested the silliness of the "combat" system. Civ 5 I enjoy; not as much as civ 2, but more so than 3 and 4.

I agree with you 100%

I have a bit more trouble understanding how experienced Civ players can have fun with V, but I guess that is possible, probably a lot depends on your play style...

Ranged units and one unit per tile IMO these things alone are tons of fun to play with - everything else new to this gmae is basically a remix of previous versions.

[SpencerH]

Well done, Ming.

The biggest factor in going with Steam, beyond stopping PRE-release pirating, is that brick and mortar retail outlets charge a ton of money for shelf space. With Steam, there is no shelf, no charging for physical space. Thus, the cut back to the developer/publisher is much higher. On top of that, in theory, is also a better tool set for community, achievements, MP, mods, patches and so forth.

There is also another benefit in allowing a test community access to builds without fear of those builds leaking to the public.

Digital distribution is certainly cheaper than physical distribution and, as with music, is the "wave of the future". I'm not sure, though, if you mean that brick and mortar companies are acting as agents for the game manufacturers (which would be an interesting business practice I wasnt aware of) or if you are refering to the inherent cost of shelf space in general?

[notyoueither]

Digital distribution is certainly cheaper than physical distribution and, as with music, is the "wave of the future". I'm not sure, though, if you mean that brick and mortar companies are acting as agents for the game manufacturers (which would be an interesting business practice I wasnt aware of) or if you are refering to the inherent cost of shelf space in general?

Companies buy shelf space from retailers (rent would be a better term). They then decide what gets put in that space. This happens in supermarkets and other retail environments. Some sections of shelves in software departments may work like this.

[Ming]

Shelf space at the brick and mortar retail level is scarce. In many cases, you have to pay the retail a "slotting" fee to get quality shelf space instead of just a "few" games slapped on a shelf. This fee is above what they pay for the game. In other cases, they offer you a display or end of aisle position if you discount the game even more for them. Also, you either pay, or give discounts for prmotional material like posters or aisle cards. Besides having to actually provide a physical product, just getting it on the shelves in a highly visible manner can add to the cost or lower the profits.

That's what yin is talking about

[jnh140]

I bought civ 5 at launch because it was digitally distributed by steam. If it was not available on steam or impulse, I would not have purchased it. Come to think of it, with the exception of starcraft II, I have not bought any game that is not digitally distributed. For good or for bad, digital distribution is never going to go away, and I for one have embraced it. I would bet there are other aging gamers like myself who likewise have little time available to head down to best buy every time a AAA title gets released.

[SpencerH]

Companies buy shelf space from retailers (rent would be a better term). They then decide what gets put in that space. This happens in supermarkets and other retail environments. Some sections of shelves in software departments may work like this.

Interesting! I've never heard of that.

[SpencerH]

Shelf space at the brick and mortar retail level is scarce. In many cases, you have to pay the retail a "slotting" fee to get quality shelf space instead of just a "few" games slapped on a shelf. This fee is above what they pay for the game. In other cases, they offer you a display or end of aisle position if you discount the game even more for them. Also, you either pay, or give discounts for prmotional material like posters or aisle cards. Besides having to actually provide a physical product, just getting it on the shelves in a highly visible manner can add to the cost or lower the profits.

That's what yin is talking about

I have heard of that though. I guess an interesting side question is whether (how soon) places like Gamestop go the way of the video rental companies? Will all game distribution be online? It seems likely, so I guess I'll be waiting for less intrusive Steam competitors to emerge.

[bryanw1995]

I bought civ 5 at launch because it was digitally distributed by steam. If it was not available on steam or impulse, I would not have purchased it. Come to think of it, with the exception of starcraft II, I have not bought any game that is not digitally distributed. For good or for bad, digital distribution is never going to go away, and I for one have embraced it. I would bet there are other aging gamers like myself who likewise have little time available to head down to best buy every time a AAA title gets released.

yeah, I was already registered with steam so it was nbd for me to get civ with it as well. I like this mode much better, I actually bought 2 civ 3 and 2 bts discs b/c I misplaced the originals temporarily after the first month or two of playing them as my primary. now I just have all those discs lying around. and with other modern games requiring at a minimum 30 digit activication codes and at a maximum highly intrusive drm, I'll take something that will store my games for me indefinitely. My only concern is if steam or impulse ever goes out of business I'm gonna be sol!!

[jnh140]

The way I understand the TOS is that if steam goes under, all games you own on it will be permanently unlock and revert to your ownership. Of course, the servers eventually shutter, but isn't there a harddrive backup option available for people who fear a sudden collapse despite the record profits and soaring earnings?

[yin26]

I guess an interesting side question is whether (how soon) places like Gamestop go the way of the video rental companies? Will all game distribution be online? It seems likely, so I guess I'll be waiting for less intrusive Steam competitors to emerge.

It's on the way already, of course. Further out what I see happening is like computing in the cloud: you will not download the game at all but rent/lease server time to play it. The advantage?

Assuming good Internet speeds, people with even crappy CPUs could stream high-end game performance to their machines. Hardware conflicts would mostly be solved or could be consolidated and addressed at the level of these severs dishing out the game and streaming it. That would be worth a premium, right? Not having to upgrade your system every few years or having to deal with hardware conflicts, etc.?

AAA titles instantly playable with very little up front cost?

Again, though, this is a good way off!

[Zoetstofzoetje]

Again, though, this is a good way off!

Not nearly as far away as you might think. I remember a few of these projects from a few years ago. The only remaining bottleneck is user bandwidth. As soon as a sizeable portion of the internet community operates on glass fibre, this will roll out.