Interview from Paradox Describing Millenia as Unsuccessful

[Spaceman98]

Hello,

I found this interview: https://www.dbltap.com/features/par...ts-into-new-games-after-life-by-you-interview

They say this about Millennia: Lilja names Millennia as an example for such an experiment that may not have paid off, but wasn’t a massive loss either. “It’s a nice little game,” he says. “It didn’t really take off, but it didn't cost us the bank. We can try and fail and be fine. We like the team who did it, it’s a nice game, not commercially viable – but that’s the gaming industry. If it had been much bigger and more expensive, it would not be something we’d be interested in doing again. Finding the size of the investment and the risk we take is the trick.”

I guess that is evidence we won't see new updates for the game. Its a shame, because I've really enjoyed it so far. I think revolutions mechanics, the different ages and alternative histories, and the game's diplomacy system all have a lot to offer.

My main complaint about the game right now is the military AI. I've fought multiple wars where the AI coordinates its units very poorly, letting me defeat much larger, more technologically advanced armies easily.

Hopefully there will be mods that improve this and other aspects of the game. My favorite game is Civ 4, which has been improved through modding far beyond the developers vision.

 

[Dissenswurst]

Very interesting! Unfortunately, Lilja didn't talk about what they think the reasons are for Millennia not being a success (apart from generally stating that the market for turn-based strategy may be saturated). I don't think that this saturation argument is valid. Many like Millennia since it offers a quite different approach.

For example, I think that a map editor and an earth map with TSL (though I don't need it and an earth map with TSL may not exactly be in the spirit of the game) would have added a larger player group to buy this game (I think the player bubble who insist on this isn't small) without needing much extra investment. This could've been the difference between "wasn't a big loss" and "was at least a small financial success".

At least Paradox doesn't exclude the possibility that they're trying again to get a foot into the door of civ-like turn-based strategy. According to the interview they just don't want to start with huge investments.

 

[Red Death]

It's interesting to think about what was actually the biggest factor in the reception it got. It's true that many things were a bit janky and felt underdeveloped on release. But when you followed the general discourse online on whether people planned to try it out, graphics almost seemed like a bigger factor.

Hopefully there will be mods that improve this and other aspects of the game. My favorite game is Civ 4, which has been improved through modding far beyond the developers vision.

My biggest regret: No support for mods in multiplayer. Otherwise, I think almost very problem the game has could be fixed in mods.

 

[Brumes Wolf]

Paradox or the Dev's should really just come out and say the game is EOL, its sad how people sometimes still make bug reports here while that seems to be wasted effort.

My biggest regret: No support for mods in multiplayer. Otherwise, I think almost very problem the game has could be fixed in mods.

No (realistically useable) MP at launch probably also didn't help its popularity, I imagine many people get introduced to these kind of games by being asked to play MP with a friend, and that was not really an option at launch. Also for people that mostly play SP I imagine MP is probably still a value add, so when choosing between buying Millennia or Old World for example Old World having MP could make that one come out ahead for a lot of people.

It's interesting to think about what was actually the biggest factor in the reception it got. It's true that many things were a bit janky and felt underdeveloped on release. But when you followed the general discourse online on whether people planned to try it out, graphics almost seemed like a bigger factor.

Graphics might not be super important, but especially for a strategy game the audio visual presentation is like 90% of your first impressions on a store page, if someone sees the videos/images at the top of the steam page and goes "That looks very bland/outdated" they are likely just going to move on without looking into the gameplay details more.
I also feel like it does matter a bit when you've started playing, I feel like Civ V looks slightly better than Millennia, but I can't really explain why, It might be civ V being a bit more abstract in its looks and therefore not really suffering from age? And obviously civ V has animated and voiced leaders, and the really good VO of the narrator.
Humankind is just really bright colourful and a beautiful game to look at, obviously that doesn't compensate for a game having bad gameplay, but a pretty one will be elevated over a bland one if everything else is the same.

 

[Spaceman98]

Regarding graphics, the lack of zoom has often been a source of frustration for me. I play on a small laptop and with civ 4 or humankind, I find the interface icons large enough to easily interpret. With millennia, sometimes I find myself squinting at worker numbers or combat data. Maybe there's a setting I can change that will make the text bigger.

Personally, I don't think the game needs to have Blue Marble quality graphics. Rimworld and Dwarf Fortress are well loved despite their rudimentary graphics. However, graphics do need to be easy to interpret

 

[Brumes Wolf]

Personally, I don't think the game needs to have Blue Marble quality graphics. Rimworld and Dwarf Fortress are well loved despite their rudimentary graphics. However, graphics do need to be easy to interpret

Rimworld might not have "realistic" graphics, but it does have a distinct art style, and its graphics are clear, sharp and high quality.
A big problem for games that are trying to go for a more "realistic" look is that they usually age terrible, and if you don't manage to pull it off it looks way worse than something stylized.

 

[SAS]

I wanted to love this game but the very poor graphics, almost mobile game like, really turned me off.

 

[Dissenswurst]

I wanted to love this game but the very poor graphics, almost mobile game like, really turned me off.

I have difficulties in understanding graphics playing such a decisive role in a genre that feasts on strategy and tactics. After some time, the quality of graphics doesn't matter at all (apart from a clear, distinct, well-organized UI - ok, in this respect, Millennia needs still some improvement as well, though I have seen worse UI) since the long-term fun comes from other qualities of the game. But ok, other people have different priorities.

Edit: I didn't buy Civ 7 so far because of its far too nice and detailed graphics since I don't wan't to pay for this. I'm waiting until Civ 7 has all DLCs and I can buy it really cheap. I expect to enjoy Civ 7, but not because of its graphics.

 

[SAS]

I have difficulties in understanding graphics playing such a decisive role in a genre that feasts on strategy and tactics. After some time, the quality of graphics doesn't matter at all (apart from a clear, distinct, well-organized UI - ok, in this respect, Millennia needs still some improvement as well, though I have seen worse UI) since the long-term fun comes from other qualities of the game. But ok, other people have different priorities.

Edit: I didn't buy Civ 7 so far because of its far too nice and detailed graphics since I don't wan't to pay for this. I'm waiting until Civ 7 has all DLCs and I can buy it really cheap. I expect to enjoy Civ 7, but not because of its graphics.

I disagree. To me it mattered, a lot.

 

[Dissenswurst]

I disagree. To me it mattered, a lot.

Yes, I understand that. As I said, other people have different priorities. I just don't understand why - in this genre.

 

[SanicK]

I wanted to love this game but the very poor graphics, almost mobile game like, really turned me off.

Yeah for me too, especially with the price asked. On my country is sort of the same price as CK3 for example. It's year 2025, and with that price, we expect a better looking game. Despite they are not the same game genre, CK3 is vastly aesthetically superior. It`s the first game they were making on the genre, they needed to ask less on the price side.

 

[Troyen]

I think the launch undercut a lot of enthusiasm. I played the demo/open beta they did and general comments were "interesting but rough, excited to see where this goes before release" and then they turned around and released a month later (with a bunch of balance issues that were called out during the demo). You get the most attention on your game in the few days after release, so when you launch unfinished, it turns people off. Another six months would've given a better impression (especially since the store page advertised multiplayer but it didn't launch with it until much later).

Yes, I understand that. As I said, other people have different priorities. I just don't understand why - in this genre.

Because you're staring at the same screen and same map for 10-30 hours with games in this genre. It's not like other genres where you're moving around into different environments or where the screen and background changes regularly like on a RPG. The map is pretty much the game. If you don't like the way the map or UI look, it's a deterrent. There are games that go with non-fancy information-dense UIs, but they tend not to sell very well in 2025. (I'm not passing specific judgment on Millenia's UI here.)

 

[BrokenSky]

I think the launch undercut a lot of enthusiasm. I played the demo/open beta they did and general comments were "interesting but rough, excited to see where this goes before release" and then they turned around and released a month later (with a bunch of balance issues that were called out during the demo). You get the most attention on your game in the few days after release, so when you launch unfinished, it turns people off. Another six months would've given a better impression (especially since the store page advertised multiplayer but it didn't launch with it until much later).


Because you're staring at the same screen and same map for 10-30 hours with games in this genre. It's not like other genres where you're moving around into different environments or where the screen and background changes regularly like on a RPG. The map is pretty much the game. If you don't like the way the map or UI look, it's a deterrent. There are games that go with non-fancy information-dense UIs, but they tend not to sell very well in 2025. (I'm not passing specific judgment on Millenia's UI here.)

Yeah, I remember before launch a lot of people were pretty hyped about the game and then it came out and it was dead silence.

And it's sad because honestly this game is better than both Civ 7 and Humankind and if it had launched with multiplayer, modding support, and battle animations which didn't look like they were out of.. you know those unrepresentative adverts for browser games? No? Ok nevermind... - well anyway if it had launched with a bit more polish it could be the King of 4X right now.

 

[Brumes Wolf]

Yeah, I remember before launch a lot of people were pretty hyped about the game and then it came out and it was dead silence.

And it's sad because honestly this game is better than both Civ 7 and Humankind and if it had launched with multiplayer, modding support, and battle animations which didn't look like they were out of.. you know those unrepresentative adverts for browser games? No? Ok nevermind... - well anyway if it had launched with a bit more polish it could be the King of 4X right now.

IMHO I don't think Millennia could've ever been a succes.
After playing the "beta" (read pre release promo version) I made a post detailing a lof of relatively fundamental design decisions that I believed would doom the game if it was not given time to rework, It seems that sadly I was right, because the game released shortly after and flopped.

In order for Millennia to have succeeded i think enough would have had to been changed that you are talking about a mostly different game at that point, which is obviously also why they didn't rework it even if they realised there where issues, because that would've taken a lot of time (and money).

Millennia feels like a 4x game that was designed by people that never played or looked at any 4x games past the 90's or 00's, and while it has some really innovative bits that are great, it launched with lots of problems that the rest of the genre solved a long time ago (eg: static starting positions leading to restarts) and missing features that have become basic expectations for the genre (eg: personalities attached to nations, synchronous MP).

These problems should've been already visible in the early designs, which is why I wonder why PDX greenlit this project as it was to begin with.

 

[Dissenswurst]

I see many reasons why this game didn't sell in huge numbers (and some have already been mentioned in this thread). And of course I don't really know why. Possible reasons include:

1. For many people, the graphics is not good enough. Though I don't really understand this for a game for which tactics and strategy should be everything, many things in the UI could still be improved - the UI should be precise, concise, easy and intuitive to handle and help to see and distinguish everything clearly.
2. Many people saw the combat viewer with only one warrior against one warrior and got disgusted immediately (without thinking further).
3. The player bubble that insists on map editors and earth maps with TSL (true start locations) is not on board so far. And to me this doesn't seem a really small bubble.
4. Though the game worked from day one, important functionality was missing, especially multiplayer (has been delivered later), and many things felt to be not worked out completely. Though they worked on the game according to their roadmap and missed no deadline, and improved and bug fixed a lot the game still needs much further polishment. As many have said: They should've published it as Early Access.
5. Tutorial, infopedia and tooltips did a bad job at the beginning, and though this has improved in the meantime it is still by far not good enough.
6. The game still feels too unbalanced in many aspects.
7. The late game performance is bad.
8. AI is even worse (or so they say) than in other 4X games (though I doubt that - it is bad, but the AI of Civ VI (and many other 4X games) is also really bad).
9. The Diplomacy system is still by far too basic (and AI behaviour is still not transparent, not even after the last couple of updates).
10. The reviews on Millennia were not overwhelming.
11. There are quite some players that principially don't buy any Paradox games, since they don't want to support Paradox' 'crude' (as they would probably put it) publishing policies.

And I could probably prolong this list without much effort. I think there is a whole bunch of reasons why this game did not sell well. Some of course may be more important than others.

And don't get me wrong: Despite of all these weaknesses (though some of the points above are no problem to me) I really love Millennia because of its strengths.

 

[Dissenswurst]

Because you're staring at the same screen and same map for 10-30 hours with games in this genre. It's not like other genres where you're moving around into different environments or where the screen and background changes regularly like on a RPG. The map is pretty much the game. If you don't like the way the map or UI look, it's a deterrent. There are games that go with non-fancy information-dense UIs, but they tend not to sell very well in 2025. (I'm not passing specific judgment on Millenia's UI here.)

This means that our internal representation of the game over time must be quite different. I have no problem to look even thousands of hours on the same graphics in 4X games - all the elements of the game become symbols of their function after some time no matter how good (or bad) the graphics, and that is the reason why the quality of graphics doesn't matter to me. The only thing that really causes me problems is if things are not distinguishable enough (like the graphics of the improvements in Millennia, which makes some things unnecessarily cumbersome starting in mid game).

If people do make graphics such a vital point in the decision for or against a 4X game then either because they miss the core of the genre or because they have a perception that is really different from mine. I mean, ok, if you get really disturbed by graphics you feel to be ugly (and this doesn't even change in the long run) then maybe I can understand it.

 

[Troyen]

This means that our internal representation of the game over time must be quite different. I have no problem to look even thousands of hours on the same graphics in 4X games - all the elements of the game become symbols of their function after some time no matter how good (or bad) the graphics, and that is the reason why the quality of graphics doesn't matter to me. The only thing that really causes me problems is if things are not distinguishable enough (like the graphics of the improvements in Millennia, which makes some things unnecessarily cumbersome starting in mid game).

If people do make graphics such a vital point in the decision for or against a 4X game then either because they miss the core of the genre or because they have a perception that is really different from mine. I mean, ok, if you get really disturbed by graphics you feel to be ugly (and this doesn't even change in the long run) then maybe I can understand it.

I think we just have different perspectives. And that's fine, I know some people that share your stance and some people that share mine. I have no idea what the relative sizes of the two camps are, only that they both exist in some capacity.

Generally speaking (because tbh I last played Millenia in the pre-release demo so I don't remember a whole lot about its UI and can't comment on it specifically), I've been playing games for decades, but that doesn't mean I want games to look like they did decades ago. I had a lot of fun with Civ 2 as a kid, but I couldn't go back to it if you asked me now. I'd actually rather play Civ 6 again instead. Note that this means "better graphics" is not the same as "realistic graphics," stylistic graphics like Civ 6, Anno 1800, or Rimworld are fine too, so long as the style is internally consistent.

Now graphics certainly can't carry your game. Weak gameplay is going to cause attrition even with pretty graphics. But graphics can help carry your store page. Especially since even some indie devs have raised the bar on what's possible, so why settle for something less? My gaming machine has a 4K monitor, so any rough spots on the UI get amplified and become distracting over a multi-hour session.

 

[Spaceman98]

This means that our internal representation of the game over time must be quite different. I have no problem to look even thousands of hours on the same graphics in 4X games - all the elements of the game become symbols of their function after some time no matter how good (or bad) the graphics, and that is the reason why the quality of graphics doesn't matter to me. The only thing that really causes me problems is if things are not distinguishable enough (like the graphics of the improvements in Millennia, which makes some things unnecessarily cumbersome starting in mid game).

If people do make graphics such a vital point in the decision for or against a 4X game then either because they miss the core of the genre or because they have a perception that is really different from mine. I mean, ok, if you get really disturbed by graphics you feel to be ugly (and this doesn't even change in the long run) then maybe I can understand it.

Honestly IMO it would be better if improvements were simple ASCII pictographs that are easy to tell apart at a glance with no 3D rendering at all

 

[Dissenswurst]

I think we just have different perspectives. And that's fine, I know some people that share your stance and some people that share mine. I have no idea what the relative sizes of the two camps are, only that they both exist in some capacity.

Generally speaking (because tbh I last played Millenia in the pre-release demo so I don't remember a whole lot about its UI and can't comment on it specifically), I've been playing games for decades, but that doesn't mean I want games to look like they did decades ago. I had a lot of fun with Civ 2 as a kid, but I couldn't go back to it if you asked me now. I'd actually rather play Civ 6 again instead. Note that this means "better graphics" is not the same as "realistic graphics," stylistic graphics like Civ 6, Anno 1800, or Rimworld are fine too, so long as the style is internally consistent.

Now graphics certainly can't carry your game. Weak gameplay is going to cause attrition even with pretty graphics. But graphics can help carry your store page. Especially since even some indie devs have raised the bar on what's possible, so why settle for something less? My gaming machine has a 4K monitor, so any rough spots on the UI get amplified and become distracting over a multi-hour session.

You got a like from me for that reply since I like your style of argumentation even if I'm not sharing your opinion in all points.

I for my part have no problems in playing old games like Civ II. I have done so in the past. Currently I'm replaying some maps of Heroes of Might and Magic III, for example.

Why settle for something less? Since nice and fancy graphics is expensive. I don't need it in this genre. Of course, you lose people if your graphics is outright ugly, but this is at least partly in the eye of the beholder (the same graphics some may find nice and some others ugly). Even I wouldn't buy a game if I find its graphics ugly for my taste, at least not on release - but if I find enough good reasons in reviews of the game it is worth to give a try I may go for it later - in the 4X genre, not in open world games, of course.

Note that I talk about the general graphics, not the UI. A game can have fantastic graphics and nevertheless a dysfunctional UI. A dysfunctional UI is a much bigger problem than ugly graphics. I find the UI of Millennia decent, even good in some aspects, but there's still some room for improvement (I gave an example above). But there's nothing game stopping in the UI, not for me. The combat viewer, for example, does its job - you can deduce much about how the combat is working in Millennia. It is not beautiful, ok, but after two or three views this 'is not beautiful'-feeling vanished anyway and was replaced by the pure functionality which is working. And you even can optionally deactivate it if it is really disturbing you.

 

[guiskj]

Graphics do matter a lot for me and it is the main reason I gave this game a pass even though I'm a massive civ6, stellaris and Old World fan.

I don't need next gen graphics, but I do expect a pleasant art style and high-ish definition textures.

Millennia art was all over the place and down right painful to look at sometimes. Had PDX invested another 50-100k for more artists maybe this game would have reached a bigger audience.