I wonder if maybe the price is a factor.

$140 edition doesn't include all future DLC. No victory options, maps are crap, limited amount of AI, no advanced setup options, forced end game instead of open ended.

Obvious flaws, it's an early access game at this point.

It’s not about the hype or any other nonsense. It’s about Firaxis systematically releasing worse and worse installments. The last truly great Civ game was IV which released in 2005 and reached maturity with BTS in 2007. Civ V with BNW was… tolerable, but a noticeable decline. And said decline never stopped since. I like Civ, but in no world would I pay outrageous price for a new sequel that is inferior in almost every way when I can just play IV or V. Or Old World if I want something more focused and complex. Civ VII just has no real appeal.

People read all the bad comments on the web, and since the prices are high, they don't buy it. Many of those who bought it already asked for a refund. I won't hide I couldn't stand it for much more than 1h. After about 1.5h on the counter, I asked for a refund.
The list of issues is so long that we can write a separate article about it, and the worst one (repeated by many others) is no fun.

OnasiIt’s not about the hype or any other nonsense. It’s about Firaxis systematically releasing worse and worse installments. The last truly great Civ game was IV which released in 2005 and reached maturity with BTS in 2007. Civ V with BNW was… tolerable, but a noticeable decline. And said decline never stopped since. I like Civ, but in no world would I pay outrageous price for a new sequel that is inferior in almost every way when I can just play IV or V. Or Old World if I want something more focused and complex. Civ VII just has no real appeal.

Nice to see someone thinking the same as I do, I thought I was just getting to old

Given that Civ VI has been in bundles like Humble Bundle and base game has been on sale for something like 3$€£, is there a real comparison here? :D
Plus, the initial set of reviews aren't that stellar. Which also isn't new for Civ series - it more often than not comes to form with first expansion or so.

With Civ VI I bought on launch, then years later bought Anthology to complete the collection.

I may as well wait a few years for a complete collection on a steam sale.

It plays like Humankind+ not like Civ. I stick with Civ V.

teamtd11With Civ VI I bought on launch, then years later bought Anthology to complete the collection.

I may as well wait a few years for a complete collection on a steam sale.

Yeah, since they've established their pattern, I don't see any point in buying civ games before the dlc comes out.

I've had a rule starting from Civ V, I'll buy the game when I can get it and all its dlc for $30.

Though, for Civ VII, I'll also have to add "once they remove Denuvo".

I played Civ2, then the next was Civ5 and Beyond Earth, Civ4 and Civ6. None of the newer versions match the first mentioned in complexity. I can't comprehend how Civ2 could be so well thought, and the latest versions add some silly mechanics and can actually have less in gameplay.
If I wanted to play Civ today, I'd run Beyond Earth or Civ5. Didn't like other versions (not including Civ2).

I don't buy games on release, since I don't enjoy being a beta tester at the best. 120 EUR for game with all DLC passes is also hard to swallow as well as presence of Denuvo. And new changes in gameplay don't help too.
As for style I like IV an V the best.

High initial price and later DLCs not included. That probably applies to most games. I wait for Ultimate/Gold/GOTY editions if they don't come out immediately. IMO, base games should have full content. I get a real DLC like Elden Ring and Souls game but withholding some premium stuff just to get extra $10-$20 out of me, is a big turn off.

It's not just the fact it's a plainly bad product. It feels that this franchise with its each release (from 2010 and onward) tries to sell itself to the people that haven't played the predecessors, but just to the people freshly introduced to the genre.
If you ask me, it's about damn time to have such an approach backfire and ultimately (I hope so) kill the franchise altogether.
Old World exists, it runs natively on GNU/Linux, and it's constantly evolving and improving, probably owing to the fact that we live in such times when a small dev team of great and accessible people (24/7 on discord) can make a much better game than these AAA studios.
And this series still carry the Sid's name, even though he didn't do any notable work on the games since the original. Apart from being an advisor to the dev teams. Only question remains was he a bad advisor or the one that they didn't listen to.

tommo1982I played Civ2, then the next was Civ5 and Beyond Earth, Civ4 and Civ6. None of the newer versions match the first mentioned in complexity. I can't comprehend how Civ2 could be so well thought, and the latest versions add some silly mechanics and can actually have less in gameplay.
If I wanted to play Civ today, I'd run Beyond Earth or Civ5. Didn't like other versions (not including Civ2).

Civ2 stood the Test of Time. But most importantly, Civ2 built on top of Civ1. It is a true sequel, it tries to be a "better Civ1" in every way imaginable. And that's why its so good, its really a 5+ year patch + reprogramming of Civ1, with all of the DOS-era crap removed and huge advancements from 16-bit era to 32-bit computers. We probably will never get a game update like that ever again.

Civ4 stood the Test of Lenard Nemoy. The sound design is too good even if the game is mediocre in comparison to Civ2. But whoever designed the sounds of Civ4 has made one of the most beautiful soundscapes in all of video game history. (Yes Nemoy was good but the music was unforgettable even though today).

Civ5 is actually better than Civ4 IMO in most areas, with exception of sound design. But sound was such an important piece that I think most people hated Civ5. But it was a good balance of wide vs tall, and felt like a variety of strategies could be done.

Civ6 was a huge step back from Civ5 IMO. More DLC, less feeling of a complete game. Explicitly forced anti-growth. (Like Civ2 would give penalties if you made too many cities so it was hard to play wide. But Civ6 just made settlers / builders more-and-more expensive to prevent growth to begin with). At least Civ6 was pretty and beautiful to look at. But that's the only good thing I can say about it. Its otherwise both dumbed down AND nearly impossible to understand. (Growth is dumbed down. Combat is dumbed down. But Amenities and other features are more complex... and despite their complexity its harder to have fun with Amenities optimization compared to earlier games like Civ4).

I'm not surprised that Civ7 is even more watered down. I'd have to read reviews on what's wrong exactly (or play it myself), but with so much anti-growth / anti-fun built in Civ6... and with Civ7 getting rid of workers/builders entirely, I can't imagine it feels good anymore. And for $70 to $130 the cost of this game is just so much harder to swallow.