In your face, Call of Duty!

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Man, I'm really pleased that developers can get some money with quality games. Can't wait till you start patching the game and giving us some nice expansions (and add Incas), untill then I'll be cleaving, chopping and maiming with Montezuma.:goodjob:

Civilization V will certainly leave its mark on Steam for the years to come.

Good first week numbers... now look into the crystal ball and tell me where it will be 2-3 weeks from now. :D

XFire doesn't yet pick up on Civ5 in its game list.

Hopefully we see a patch by the end of October addressing all the major and minor issues that can be fixed that quick. Although some of the more glaring issues probably need to be patched sooner (like crashes due to fog-of-war detail settings).

Why is Civ IV in those stats? 239 people atm. I dont recall Civ IV using Steam.

Ugh, don't remind me of Call of Duty.

Yeah I was shocked at that when I saw it, not due to the game's quality (which is great), but just that a Civ title would do so well in the mainstream. Well done.

Let's get me some new DLC civs to play with please XD

Why is Civ IV in those stats? 239 people atm. I dont recall Civ IV using Steam.

http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=civilization :crazyeye:

Why is Civ IV in those stats? 239 people atm. I dont recall Civ IV using Steam.

There is a Steam version of Civ III Comeplete and Civ IV Complete. I have Civ IV Complete on Steam myself.

70k players right now, we must beat Counter Strike guys!

I guess the game's not as bad as everyone makes out then!:)

Yeah I was shocked at that when I saw it, not due to the game's quality (which is great), but just that a Civ title would do so well in the mainstream. Well done.

Civ games sell very well over time also (Civ4 is still a high seller), so while we won't see numbers like this forever, it'll certainly be up there for a very long time.

51k players vs 21k players playing Counter Strike, huzzah!

I guess the game's not as bad as everyone makes out then!:)

It means Firaxis reached it's primary goal: to get more casuals into it. Those of us who have played previous Civs, know it's not that good.

It means Firaxis reached it's primary goal: to get more casuals into it. Those of us who have played previous Civs, know it's not that good.

I guess I haven't played previous civs then. Or does your condescending attitude fall apart when confronted by actual counter-examples?

It means Firaxis reached it's primary goal: to get more casuals into it. Those of us who have played previous Civs, know it's not that good.

That's weird considering I've played them all - originally - on a variety of platforms...and Civ 5 is in no way "casual friendly" compared to any of the others.

Oh, look, subjective opinions just like mine. I've seen the light, I repent my sinful ways.

It means Firaxis reached it's primary goal: to get more casuals into it. Those of us who have played previous Civs, know it's not that good.

True this.

Oh, look, subjective opinions just like mine. I've seen the light, I repent my sinful ways.
All opinions are subjective. It's incorrect assumptions that are the problem with your post(s). Stop making statements that imply that those who disagree with you are inferior/undeserving/haven't played Civ.

Does MW2 require steam? If not, these stats are pretty flawed.

Does MW2 require steam? If not, these stats are pretty flawed.

MW2 does, infact, require steam.

All opinions are subjective. It's incorrect assumptions that are the problem with your post(s). Stop making statements that imply that those who disagree with you are inferior/undeserving/haven't played Civ.

My only assumption was that old civvers don't find the game as good as newcomers do. It's hardly far-fetched, and in no way downplaying those newcomers. They just, literally, don't know better.

It is downplaying them, as you made it out to be an absolute statement: "Only those who 'don't know better' like CIv 5'. That is precisely the definition of arguing via absolute negative statements about those who disagree.

It is downplaying them, as you made it out to be an absolute statement: "Only those who 'don't know better' like CIv 5'. That is precisely the definition of arguing via absolute negative statements about those who disagree.

Really? I just think that if a newbie tried Civ IV, they'd find it better than Civ V. I guess you think "ignorant" is an insult.

I guess all the satisfied people here are newbies and that explains why you are happy with this beta version of Civ 5. I just spent 100$ to buy this game (64$ for the game and 40$ for taxi round trip) and have done some games and here are my thoughts.

1. The developers have tried to blindly change everything so that they can claim this is a "complete" new game as they said. That includes even the mouse button being changed from "left" to "right" button. And the menu system from horizontal to vertical causes confusing every time. It is too much wasted time since we have to learn how to use the game instead of spending excited time to learn how to win it.

2. A good game or good software is one that inherited all the good things from its previous versions. Civ 4 has so many good things that we are all excited playing it but unfortunately they have been all dumped for what is so-called "completely" new game. It makes me think that this serial games will never mature even if already more than 10 years have passed and another 10 year is coming. We spent a lot for Civ 4 to see it closing to its maturity as now but all we can see is it is dumped for a new baby born, an immature product, so likely we will have to spend another huge cash for it to grow again then what? A baby Civ 6 will be coming soon. I feel like being abused really.

3. This game version is for KIDS. The AIs are too easy. People are talking about the game's graphic but I don't think you open the game just to look at its graphic. We need something challenge and that's all the game about. Without it there is no more exciting. And for more info, I am just a Monarch player in Civ 4 but able to win at King and above level in Civ 5 easily.


I'm not criticizing anyone and don't think the developers would visit here anyway but it's just some my thought.

It means Firaxis reached it's primary goal: to get more casuals into it. Those of us who have played previous Civs, know it's not that good.

I've played every CIV and AC for ages , i'm loving CIV5 so far , so does everyone else i know.

Man, I replied against a post that said the game's popularity meant it wasn't as bad as some say. Why am I getting all the hate? That's like saying "100 million smokers can't be wrong".

Old civvers also complained about CIV4 and CIV3 AFAIK. Heck if my 60+yo dad can play and enjoy CIV5 I really don't know why you guys can't. Sometimes I feel you need to elaborate some weird and farfetched theory of why we SHOULDNT enjoy CIV5.

It's vainilla and it is better than CIV3 vainilla, and it is a good contender against CIV4 vainilla. The possibilities with mods are incredible, I can see that CIV5 will become fun for everyone and that is the goal of the devs as they plan to help the community on that issue.

We all should be happy for this success on Civilization Development, this could be EXCELLENT news for the series.

PD: Civ Revolutions did NOT sell this well and it was really dumbed down.

Old civvers also complained about CIV4 and CIV3 AFAIK. Heck if my 60+yo dad can play and enjoy CIV5 I really don't know why you guys can't. Sometimes I feel you need to elaborate some weird and farfetched theory of why we SHOULDNT enjoy CIV5.

It's vainilla and it is better than CIV3 vainilla, and it is a good contender against CIV4 vainilla. The possibilities with mods are incredible, I can see that CIV5 will become fun for everyone and that is the goal of the devs as they plan to help the community on that issue.

We all should be happy for this success on Civilization Development, this could be EXCELLENT news for the series.

PD: Civ Revolutions did NOT sell this well and it was really dumbed down.

Firaxis releases a half-baked game, and it sells well because it's designed for mass appeal. How is this good news *for the series*? It's EXCELLENT news for the people making money off it, but not for the costumers, who make up the other half of what "the series" is.

I guess I haven't played previous civs then. Or does your condescending attitude fall apart when confronted by actual counter-examples?

That chart, correct me if I'm wrong, just shows how many people logged in to play the game... It doesn't correlate into happy players or players who are going to put more then 10 hours into the game.

Firaxis releases a half-baked game, and it sells well because it's designed for mass appeal. How is this good news *for the series*? It's EXCELLENT news for the people making money off it, but not for the costumers, who make up the other half of what "the series" is.

It's a fallacy, however, to look at Civilization V in the narrow spectrum of its predecessors and not in the wide spectrum of totality -- with the other games in the market. Whether or not people like it, we are in a free market economy, and new players, as well as older players who may actually like this game, are real customers with real money, and Firaxis has acknowledged that the greatest happiness for the greatest number matters in Civilization V. Sure, there may be some people who don't like the game, but the vast majority seems to have taken a liking to Civilization V, or else the statistics would be quite the devil, wouldn't they?

those stats should be for hours played

then see how much civ tops the charts

It means Firaxis reached it's primary goal: to get more casuals into it. Those of us who have played previous Civs, know it's not that good.

Actually, I'm a pretty hardcore Civ fan that started with the first, and got heavily into it with the second, and I do think its that good. It needs work, but its my second favorite.

those stats should be for hours played

then see how much civ tops the charts

Technically, number of hours played would be a weightless statistic. It would have to be number of hours played out of number of hours or days the game has been released. However, for that manner, none of the other games get that statistic as well. Nobody knows long people play Call of Duty or Counterstrike, but what people can do is to see how long the average number of players of Civilization V, around 50000 to 60000 in the daytime, stays constant, and it has stayed pretty constant from what I've seen.

My only assumption was that old civvers don't find the game as good as newcomers do. It's hardly far-fetched, and in no way downplaying those newcomers. They just, literally, don't know better.

I'm sorry, what?

Technically, number of hours played would be a weightless statistic. It would have to be number of hours played out of number of hours or days the game has been released. However, for that manner, none of the other games get that statistic as well. Nobody knows long people play Call of Duty or Counterstrike, but what people can do is to see how long the average number of players of Civilization V, around 50000 to 60000 in the daytime, stays constant, and it has stayed pretty constant from what I've seen.

If you look at your friends list you can see how long they played a certain game for so it's trackable.

The reason the current chart for Civ V is useless to say, "Look at all those people playing, they must love it!" is because the game is so new that of course everyone who buys it is going to play it.

If you look at your friends list you can see how long they played a certain game for so it's trackable.

The reason the current chart for Civ V is useless to say, "Look at all those people playing, they must love it!" is because the game is so new that of course everyone who buys it is going to play it.

Well, you'd have to assume that your friend's list is an accurate sample of the Civilization population, and I, at least with many other people, probably can't claim that accessory. In terms of your argument about the novelty of Civilization V, it would be true, if it was release day or September 24, 2010. However, September 27, 2010 is now the day, and most people who were going to buy the game, as shown on this forum, have already bought the game, and now they're going back to the game on the merits of the game itself, not just because they want to have a first time test with it. Even if there were still some influences of novelty left, Civilization V nevertheless should get credit for even taking the first place the first day it was out for the rest of the world and after that first day. It's not that easy to defeat CoD.

It means Firaxis reached it's primary goal: to get more casuals into it. Those of us who have played previous Civs, know it's not that good.

Amen, brother.

I don't think it's subjective. I don't feel like writing a 5k char thesis to defend my statement, but if you seriously think that Civ5 is less user friendly than Civ4 then look into a mirror and cry liar.

If you look at your friends list you can see how long they played a certain game for so it's trackable.

The reason the current chart for Civ V is useless to say, "Look at all those people playing, they must love it!" is because the game is so new that of course everyone who buys it is going to play it.

And it's exactly the same reason why it's flawed logic to take the number of people logged onto Steam or number of active steam accounts as indication that people like Steam.

It's not difficult to pick stats that confirm a perception bias; marketing people do it all the time. Personally it annoys me when people equate high sales figures of a game to it being a good game. Bad games if marketed well will sell decent numbers, and good games that market poorly will sell fewer copies than they deserve.

*removed*

Infraction - trolling.

Venerus i have played all Civ's including the comunity favorites of II and IV complete, i can say that CIV V is the best by far. Just so you know that the small group of ppl that just want to create controversy and call themselves civ veterans are not in the right.

People who are so in love with the previous versions should go back and play them again. See how easily you can buy the world with diplomats in #1, build Leonardo's Workshop in #2 and never bother building another unit again.

#3 and #4 were just plain horrific on release. Completely unplayable - I "won" my first game of Civ 4 by pressing "end turn" about 300 times in a row near the end.

Anybody who thinks Civ 5 is in worse shape on release than 3 or 4 was has a short memory.

People who are so in love with the previous versions should go back and play them again. See how easily you can buy the world with diplomats in #1, build Leonardo's Workshop in #2 and never bother building another unit again.

#3 and #4 were just plain horrific on release. Completely unplayable - I "won" my first game of Civ 4 by pressing "end turn" about 300 times in a row near the end.

Anybody who thinks Civ 5 is in worse shape on release than 3 or 4 was has a short memory.


This!

Civ5 is the best vanilla incarnation of the series yet. I agree on criticizing the combat AI and the way too generous diplomatic AI when it comes to peace talk.

Other than that, amazing!

I am old, too, began playing Civ1 some time after its release when I was 16 and I have to give it to Jon Shafer: He cleaned up a lot of the chaff and half baked concepts like espionage ( running around half the globe to poison a well, sensational, NOT ), religion ( running around the world multiple time to put an icon above a city, sensational, NOT ) and many more I am too lazy to mention.

But the icing on the cake was one guy mentioning Empire :Total War as the better game. Now I have seen everything, really everything.:lol::crazyeye::lol:

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Civ5 is first and TF2 is second, what a good day for quality games! Let's see how the numbers go after the first big patch + mongols.

In your face, Call of Duty!

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Man, I'm really pleased that developers can get some money with quality games. Can't wait till you start patching the game and giving us some nice expansions (and add Incas), untill then I'll be cleaving, chopping and maiming with Montezuma.:goodjob:

barely scapring ahead of team fortress 2 which is what a 3 year old game, a few weeks after CIV 5 release is hardly decisive evidence that Civ 5 is a good game. give it a few more weeks till the honeymoon period is over then look it up again. A peek of 15,000 players seems fataly low to me.

In your face, Call of Duty!

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Man, I'm really pleased that developers can get some money with quality games. Can't wait till you start patching the game and giving us some nice expansions (and add Incas), untill then I'll be cleaving, chopping and maiming with Montezuma.:goodjob:

WOw beating a game that was released an years ago, and in the first month of release, what an achievement for Civ V...:lol:

http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=civilization :crazyeye:

And do you think that all the players of civ IV bought another time the game only to have it on steam?:lol:

The 99% of players doesn't have the Steam version (and it's laughable thinking that for a game released five years ago...)...

barely scapring ahead of team fortress 2 which is what a 3 year old game, a few weeks after CIV 5 release is hardly decisive evidence that Civ 5 is a good game. give it a few more weeks till the honeymoon period is over then look it up again. A peek of 15,000 players seems fataly low to me.

Being popular is no evidence of a good game at all, btw.

But being as popular as the best game ever made (Team Fortress 2) is not bad, either. ;)

Apart from that, the time of day when you take the statistics seems to be important, interestingly. Kiddies, Russians and Scandinavians love shooters and they tend to play earlier? Oldies, Germans and French love Civilization and they tend to play later?

Whatever. Plants vs. Zombies is in the top twenty. :goodjob:

First, the best game ever made was Civ2. Period. Is dated now, but it was the best game of the period. Damn, civ V made me go back to Civ 2 and Call to Power and Civ 4, just to see what I was missing. Sorry, Civ V is a bad, unbalanced and flawed game. Is too easy and exploitable.
Civ is not a game to beat on Deity in the first week, except for some lucky few. Even if it was a completelly new game it would be a bad game, sorry, but that's the true. It may be fixable, but at current state, that's the true.
AI is broken, given actual game mechanics. It was bad in previous versions, you may say, but the game mechanics helped overcome this. 1UPT broke that.
When you consider the Civ legacy, Civ V is a slap in the face. If you like it, good for you, but you can't say it's the best Civ or a improvement, cause it's not Civ. It's a RTS in TBS form and apart from the name and some few mechanics( like collecting food to grow cities and having settlers to build them), but the essence of a Civ game ís not there.
When you read the posts of the ones that deslike Civ V, you see a trend. Almost everyone talks about the journey, the pleasure of playing the game and pretending to be Ceasar, or Washington. Not now. Now you get your goal, get your resources and rush to victory, cause there's nothing else to do.

Congrats Firaxis, you just broke the franchise that made a gamer out of me.

Anyone else impressed by the number of Civ5 players in general? I would never have guessed that several tens of thousands of people are playing Civ at any given time. I thought it was more a niche game and that I was special :-(

I guess we can say that we are not alone!

Stuff like this is why Firaxis and 2K have no qualms about releasing a partially finished game.

"As long we be making dat paper, we good"

In your face, Call of Duty!

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Man, I'm really pleased that developers can get some money with quality games. Can't wait till you start patching the game and giving us some nice expansions (and add Incas), untill then I'll be cleaving, chopping and maiming with Montezuma.:goodjob:

EEErrr right....

why don't we included the number of people playing CoD:MWII on Xbox Live and PSN...

Because those are the STEAM users, not the XBOX users or PSN numbers.

One would thing that you are bitter with Civilization 5 success o.o

Anyone else impressed by the number of Civ5 players in general? I would never have guessed that several tens of thousands of people are playing Civ at any given time. I thought it was more a niche game and that I was special :-(

I guess we can say that we are not alone!

I don't think it was so niche... You can call Europa Universalis niche game....

Moreover 2k put a lot of effort in advertisement for Civ V. As you can see, a lot of new casual players bought the game, people eho never play the previous games of the franchise... I can say that's a good 50% of the new player base... And that explains why they are enjoyng the game so much, never palyed such a ame, so it's quite diffucult to grasp the mechanics in so few days from release...

As i say, the more pleased for Civ V are those players plus the players who didn't like to much Civ III or IV for the difficulties they had on high levels...

Considering that Civ V's sales are about 300k, and now are playing a 40k on avarage after only 30 days we can say that at least an half of the playerbase is lost or in stand by...

If we speaks of number of player playnig on avarage, we need always considering the sales... It's a bit harsh to say, but 40k only after 30 days is not so good, compared to games that are played nowadays after a year in number around the 100k...
The progressive number of playerbase lost is something to worry about...

Because those are the STEAM users, not the XBOX users or PSN numbers.

One would thing that you are bitter with Civilization 5 success o.o

I'm not bitter, I am disappointed. If you really like ciV, then you won't care whether it's a financial success or not, nor how many people are playing, you would just play it. Seems to me, you posted this only to because of your insecurities and these fleeting numbers to justify and validate on your purchase on a flawed game design. You just capture one moment. I'm looking at the numbers now, and they are nowhere near the FPS games.

If MW2 was only only on PC and on Steam then you wouldn't never made this thread. A lot of players didn't get MW2 on PC 'cause the Infinity Ward don't have servers for them. (MW2 is a bad game too but it made TONS of money). Numbers don't make a great game.


EDIT:
current ----- Peak

49,594 ------ 69,156 ---- Counter-Strike
48,062 ------ 68,200 ---- Counter-Strike: Source
41,954 ----- 62,046 ---- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
16,375 ----- 28,926 ---- Sid Meier's Civilization V

Dude I'm happy that CiV even SHOWS on the chart. Ever since the days of Civ1, with those pesky Spies, here on Peru I think that only a handful of citizens played the game. With the new versions coming I have seen more and more players and that makes me HAPPY. It looks like is a sin over here but it is not for me. I'm happy that such a good series is having success in a world where people play MORE HALO, MORE WAR FPS, MORE WORLD OF WARCRAFT.

I'm not saying CiV is perfect, but so far for me is a good VAINILLA release. To me it's WAAAAAY better than Civ3 vainilla and it is a good run for civ4 vainilla.

Civ 5 is the definition of a game rushed to make money faster. The comparison to CoD is completely irrelevant.

And yes, wait a few months and we'll see where Civ 5 stands.

Speaking of TF2, imagine if Firaxis spent the next 3 years doing for Civ5 what Valve did for TF2? Tons of post-release support and patch after patch of free content updates.

THAT would turn me around on this. Maybe it'll happen. I'm skeptical, but wouldn't that be nice if it did? :)

This morning: 13,624 25,000 Sid Meier's Civilization V

Over at XFire, Civ3 is #458, Civ4 is #121, and Civ5 is #87 in terms of hours played this week.

(Personally, I'm having more fun playing Baldur's Gate I and II and haven't fired up Civ5 in 2-3 weeks now.)

People who are so in love with the previous versions should go back and play them again. See how easily you can buy the world with diplomats in #1, build Leonardo's Workshop in #2 and never bother building another unit again.

#3 and #4 were just plain horrific on release. Completely unplayable - I "won" my first game of Civ 4 by pressing "end turn" about 300 times in a row near the end.

Anybody who thinks Civ 5 is in worse shape on release than 3 or 4 was has a short memory.

Actually i can't remember noticing huge unbalances or bugs at Civ III & IV release . They may have been there but i didn't notice while in Civ V i can't walk next to them. Completely wrong info texts , infinite peace bug , retarded aggressive and stupid AI and extremely bad production vs science balance. And darn i'm sure i even didn't notice many minor bugs . Oh and i forgot : worst performance at release ever encountered , never did it take so long to pass turns in Civ III & IV . And at release i used to play them on below average machines while i'm playing Civ V on a good machine. (and don't even have all settings on max like i usually do for every other single game i have)

Baldur's gate is a ridiculously high standard to compare CiV to, we can't all be bioware.

Baldur's gate is a ridiculously high standard to compare CiV to, we can't all be bioware.

Off Topic, but bioware is gearing up for a nice nosedive with SW: TOR.

give it a few more weeks till the honeymoon period is over then look it up again. A peek of 15,000 players seems fataly low to me.

I waited patiently http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Ps: It is really amazing that you find 15k players fataly low.

15,000 players for a strategy game like Civilization is most definitely not fatally low. I used to play AoE III pretty competitively and even in its prime the numbers for that game were nowhere near what they are for games like Counter-Strike and Black Ops and the like. The simple fact is this: Civilization V is not, in general, accessible to the typical computer gamer, very few people appreciate the time and devotion to a single game of this. I'll admit, I've been playing sparsely (mostly due to having graduate exams) but also because playing this game requires a lot of attention and time that some people just aren't willing to give. Honestly, when I got on this game the other day and saw that we were peaking out at around 28,000 players for the day, I was blown away that ANY strategy game would have such a playerbase.

Welcome to civfanatics factorof2. [party]

Thanks Piece :) I haven't played Civ in so long, I started out when I was a kid playing Civ II and then picked it up again in Civ IV, now I'm back and long overdue for some empire building.

Admittedly, I'm a bit biased in these strategy games. I've been conditioned by the Total War series of games, so I'm definitely loving the revamped military setup along with the new hex tileset. Just makes me sad to see so much doomsaying over this game because I've enjoyed every incarnation of it that I've played.

Speaking of TF2, imagine if Firaxis spent the next 3 years doing for Civ5 what Valve did for TF2? Tons of post-release support and patch after patch of free content updates.

THAT would turn me around on this. Maybe it'll happen. I'm skeptical, but wouldn't that be nice if it did? :)

One can only hope, but with 2K Games in control, I don't see this ever happening. :(

Honestly, I don't think many companies except Valve do such an amazing job on their games before release dates, maybe Blizzard. Then again that's probably the main reason we had to wait so long for titles like Diablo III, Starcraft II and Half-Life 2.

Wanted to bump my thread because with the latest patch, things seem to be on the right track. 25k peak is nice!

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/?snr=1_4_4__110

PS: Had a LAN party yesterday and what can I say, the game has improved a lot and we had tons of fun. And ofc I RULED the world with Incas B)

Hey there guys it's me again and I'm happy to inform you that after almost one year, Civ5 peaks at 28k players. Time for an expansion perhaps?

Hey there guys it's me again and I'm happy to inform you that after almost one year, Civ5 peaks at 28k players. Time for an expansion perhaps?

I'd love to see an expansion, but right now the thing I'm wanting the most is for them to give us access to the DLL.

Yeah I'd say getting the game working at some decent level is much more important than an expansion or even another DLC.

In your face, Call of Duty!

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Man, I'm really pleased that developers can get some money with quality games. Can't wait till you start patching the game and giving us some nice expansions (and add Incas), untill then I'll be cleaving, chopping and maiming with Montezuma.:goodjob:

CiV is not even close to beating MW3.

Current Players Peak Today Game

23,212 82,240 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
22,937 59,526 Team Fortress 2
21,082 79,984 Counter-Strike
16,228 65,028 Counter-Strike: Source
14,788 62,750 Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 - Multiplayer
13,635 76,127 Football Manager 2012
9,385 29,272 Sid Meier's Civilization V
9,291 24,765 Dota 2
4,586 16,045 Terraria
4,229 13,325 Left 4 Dead 2

People are still playing Left 4 Dead 2?

And what of this "Dota 2" ?

Which of both games is better is subjective.
But civ5 beeing more casual friendly is objective.

But I must say, civ5 managed to bring my friends to the franchite, who always passed on older civs. So I finally can play civ online unlike civ1-4

Playing multiplayer>all the features we lost

Amusing how an archaic game like normal CS can still beat CiV in player numbers.

And Dota2 is a port of the Warcraft 3 custom map DotA, basically a 1 hero per player spellfest, the easy gameplay has also spawned unofficial clones like League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth, which are all basically the same game.

And Dota2 is a port of the Warcraft 3 custom map DotA, basically a 1 hero per player spellfest, the easy gameplay has also spawned unofficial clones like League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth, which are all basically the same game.

I actually know that, but since it's never been released yet but people are already playing it with numbers in top 10....I am curious :)

CiV is not even close to beating MW3.

Yeah, but at the time this post was made, MW3 wasn't even out, so it's not really relevant. One game is a few months old. The other is a year and a half old.
Anyway, the fact that Civ V still regularly is in the Top 10 is good. Long as Firaxis keeps supporting the game it will probably stay that way for awhile.

The possibilities with mods are incredible, I can see that CIV5 will become fun for everyone and that is the goal of the devs as they plan to help the community on that issue.
The tone of this post is too cheerful.

Amusing how an archaic game like normal CS can still beat CiV in player numbers.
It isn't surprising though, as the CS games have sold extremely well internationally and both will run on very low end and old computers. There was an internet cafe I went to in southern Spain a few years ago and it was mostly full of young teenagers playing CSS. This wasn't a big city either.


I actually know that, but since it's never been released yet but people are already playing it with numbers in top 10....I am curious :)

Invite only beta.

I am probably will get flamed but Dota2 is more addicting than Civ5 lol. :):):) Anno 2070 too!

Well yeah Dota2, despite all it's flaws of simplicity, is a better designed game, unlike CiV that just completely threw away all it's improvements over the years, Dota2 is just a contiuation and I expect improvement on an already very addictive game that respects it's past improvements. During the last IEM championship (I think) the viewer counts on the LoL (basically the same game) stream greatly exceeded the SC2 numbers, which was the main event.
And yeah it's still only in beta, I would not be surprised if it takes the top when it's released.

And Maniacal, I'm not even talking about CSS, just normal CS, which I thought died out when CSS got popular, evidently I was wrong.

Yeah, but at the time this post was made, MW3 wasn't even out, so it's not really relevant. One game is a few months old. The other is a year and a half old.
Anyway, the fact that Civ V still regularly is in the Top 10 is good. Long as Firaxis keeps supporting the game it will probably stay that way for awhile.

Indeed I hope for that very much Bob.