Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Verified_Confection_Being]

We've talked a lot about competition in this thread in terms of directly other 4xs and other current big strategy games. I think the last decade has exposed just how much competition there is from GSGs too. Paradox has exploded, particularly with EUIV and HOIIV. Civ sailed along grabbing both audiences while the GSG market was in it's infancy, but I think a lot of strategy gamers know what they want a lot better now than in the past, and where they can get it.

EUV I think should be Firaxis number 1 fear to audience growth right now. They've got a window until it launches to convince and capture the crowd that are less board gamers and more simulators in how they play civ before EUV launches. I suspect EUV is going to be strong out the box, and maintain decent player numbers. I didn't know about paradox games when I got into Civ. Once I found euIV I put down Civ V. I came back for the Civ VI launched, it underwhelmed and I went right back to EUIV. There's always a bit of an itch for that create an empire in the geography and through all time that I go back to Civ V for still, but I don't need a new Civ game for that, and Civ VII doesn't look better at that than V to me yet.

I know if EUV launches before there's a way I can see for me to play Civ VII, that's pretty much my attention gone on Civ VII for the next few years as I have sunk thousands of hours into both series in the past, but my time is less available for that these days. If EUV hits before Civ VII is fixed, I could see myself grabbing Civ VII complete with all dlc if I saw it for say £30 on offer in 4/5 years time, but only if the latest reviews were significantly better and addressed the Civ switching / ages issues.

 

[Gorbles]

You and anyone else can enjoy the game if you like, I do too, it doesn’t mean it has a lot of players though depending on what you’re comparing to.

Oh, I'm not saying much about liking the game other than feeling in something of a minority.

I'm saying "minimising the active players of this game is as logically-flawed as minimising valid criticism from people who want the game to be / have been better". Anything you can do to rationalise the feeling that said minimisation is, in your eyes, accurate, is entirely besides the point. The point is that it's happening, and in my opinion, it shouldn't be.

 

[user746383]

Ok, then to be clear - if anyone feels minimised by the number of active players being so low compared to other AAA games, please don’t! It’s okay to like what you like, and your perspective is interesting and valued. How popular something is has nothing to do with how valid your opinions are. Steam describes the current reviews of the game as “overwhelmingly negative”, not “people who like it are wrong.”

 

[Gorbles]

Ok, then to be clear - if anyone feels minimised by the number of active players being so low compared to other AAA games, please don’t! It’s okay to like what you like, and your perspective is interesting and valued. How popular something is has nothing to do with how valid your opinions are.

But that wasn't the argument. It wasn't about "feeling" minimised. I appreciate it wasn't your argument - I was responding to someone else, but the argument was a comparison between the (static) number of sales and the (malleable) concurrent number of players. I assumed confusion r.e. concurrent vs. fixed (measurable) figures. There are less charitable interpretations, but I do my best to leave them at the proverbial door (especially when talking with someone for the first time!).

Not only is comparing static sales with concurrent users a flawed comparison, using that as a springboard to describe the players of this game as "almost no-one" is discounting the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of players that are engaging with this game on a regular basis. Just as if someone discounted negative reviews for reason X or Y (something I mostly stayed out of when it did the rounds around here).

Ignoring that many players is, logically, simply not very sensible. But I guess I'm repeating myself. If anyone really wants to insist that they should be able to do that, then I'll leave them to it.

 

[user746383]

Makes sense, I get where you’re coming from too.

 

[Kyriakos]

But that wasn't the argument. It wasn't about "feeling" minimised. I appreciate it wasn't your argument - I was responding to someone else, but the argument was a comparison between the (static) number of sales and the (malleable) concurrent number of players. I assumed confusion r.e. concurrent vs. fixed (measurable) figures. There are less charitable interpretations, but I do my best to leave them at the proverbial door (especially when talking with someone for the first time!).

Not only is comparing static sales with concurrent users a flawed comparison, using that as a springboard to describe the players of this game as "almost no-one" is discounting the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of players that are engaging with this game on a regular basis. Just as if someone discounted negative reviews for reason X or Y (something I mostly stayed out of when it did the rounds around here).

Ignoring that many players is, logically, simply not very sensible. But I guess I'm repeating myself. If anyone really wants to insist that they should be able to do that, then I'll leave them to it.

Tbf there is exactly 0% chance of there being "hundreds of thousands of players" for Civ7. Even the software it uses prevents one from thinking there are players outside those who bought it (let's add also immediate circle, which already shows how bad the demographic is as it can't be counted anywhere).
According to Steam, it has been a while since the game had even 10K players in a day.

 

[itix]

EUV I think should be Firaxis number 1 fear to audience growth right now.

This is only speculation, but perhaps they reasoned they must release Civ VII in February, no matter how unfinished it is. Reasoning they should get it out a little early and establish a loyal player base before the main competitor enters the arena.

9 years ago Paradox was smaller than Firaxis and not much threat, but Paradox has grown bigger. Their dev teams per franchise are still smaller than on Firaxis, but on the other hand, in Civ terms, Paradox is enjoying adjacency bonuses from the Clausewitz engine. They can also shift staff between projects if some projects need more help. Firaxis is pretty much on their own and dependent on 2K management, or lack thereof.

 

[Xur]

I like paradox games, but none of them offer a 4000BC to 2000AD gameplay session. They are often also very abstract and spreadsheet’ish unlike a civ game that is very tangible. I wouldn’t say they compete at all at the moment - only for our time like everything else.

I think Firaxis is in a limbo like Maxis was with Sim City - if they cant sort out the game someone else will. They are just lucky that Humankind was civ7’ish and nobody wanted that.

It’s an open door waiting to be kicked in.

 

[King of Prussia]

We will see how EU5 is at release, but if its anything like past paradox titles, it too will needs years of work(Many $$$ expansions) before it starts to really shine. They arent known for releasing solid products. They had 2 major flops in recent years. Even titles that werent flops, had numerous overhauls to try and make it better. Eu4 today is completely different from what it was at release. Hopefully its a solid release, but they havent given me any reason to believe it will be different.

 

[Gorbles]

According to Steam, it has been a while since the game had even 10K players in a day.

That's not what concurrent numbers mean

 

[Kyriakos]

That's not what concurrent numbers mean

It implies that quite a bit more than 10K concurrent would have been supported by "hundreds of thousands" overall

 

[Gorbles]

It implies that quite a bit more than 10K concurrent would have been supported by "hundreds of thousands" overall

So you concede that "in a day" is not what the graph was showing?

It's kinda important to the maths, which isn't normally something I'd feel comfortable explaining to you

The number of unique players in a day depends on the length of any given session. Impossible to measure. So guesstimate using, say, a hour for a session? That's 240k (from 10k, assuming no ups or downs). An hour too short, even on average? Double it. That's still 120k. In one day. You can of course guessimate lower. That's why I said "tens of" thousands, with "hundreds of" in brackets.

 

[Gorbles]

Gorbles, I am not sure why you don't get that it's surprising for me that you think I misread it. Nor do you need to explain to me basic stats - which btw doesn't give the same distribution for each hour of the day, as if we have 24 equal population zones. There is also the obvious issue with potentially many of the same people playing throughout the day

These are all factors!

But kinda irrelevant to you saying "the game doesn't have 10k players in a day" (it does), and also no good in proving your "exactly 0%" claim.

I hedged my bets, because I've said (multiple times) there's no way of knowing for sure. Tens of thousands was the base number, because I figured it'd be inarguable. The potential for six figures, easily demonstrable. What are you trying to prove?

 

[Gorbles]

I never said that. Why do you think I did? ...
Is it really that important to convince yourself I don't know what 'concurrent' means? :/ Is it really difficult to realize that "concurrent" was left out because it was obviously inferred??? (I even posted the steam graph...)

I don't quite understand how you're trying to rationalise your choice to nitpick my post out of nowhere, but "it has been a while since the game had even 10K players in a day" (a direct quote of the words you posted) means something different once you insert the word "concurrent" into it. Because it makes it a very different number. 10k concurrent is not 10k. "concurrent" is not inferred.

So either you made a mistake that for whatever reason you're unwilling to admit, or you're wasting time for goodness knows only what reason.

On top of that, your reasoning behind saying there's "exactly 0%" chance of hundreds of thousands of players only makes sense if you don't consider concurrent numbers. It's very much not a 0% chance with 10k concurrent. You can consider it arguable, sure, but not impossible.

So, again Kyriakos. What are we doing here? What are you doing here? What is the point you thought you were making? Help me out here.

 

[Civinator]

[

ATTACH=full]734528[/ATTACH]

In a hospital, such a graph would be next to exitus.

 

[CliffCo]

I've seen several people say they are going to start playing 7 again once the update hits, and i'm hoping it will encourage more to do the same. I've noticed an increase in members over the last week in the FB group i'm on too.

 

[GeneralZift]

In a hospital, such a graph would be next to exitus.

My heart rate after 30 pages of pedantic Civfanatics

 

[Core Imposter]

It would seem to me worse if hundreds of thousands of people are combining to generate that statistical profile. But I think we know that isn't the case.

 

[Kev1916]

(Gorbles is a friend - and all-around good person And I am going to stop posting about this as I am starting to get upset)

Lol I think your man is at it !

Re concurrent, I had a good session on Warhammer Saturday and Sunday
Started at 12:00 finished at 02:00Am 14 hours , Sunday 12:00 - 20:00 8 hours .

During that logged in time I still has Bio breaks , made food for son , myself ,cat and dog ,
Took the dog out for walks , tidied house a bit etc etc even watched an episode of mobland .
Also cause I’m on turn 200 plus the Ai shots taken are say 30-45 secs a turn .
There goes another hour and a half .

Which is more than Goerbles mythical
10,000 sign in 09:00 and then
sign out at 10:00 for another 10,000 to log in….

 

[GeneralZift]

Lol I think your man is at it !

Re concurrent, I had a good session on Warhammer Saturday and Sunday
Started at 12:00 finished at 02:00Am 14 hours , Sunday 12:00 - 20:00 8 hours .

During that logged in time I still has Bio breaks , made food for son , myself ,cat and dog ,
Took the dog out for walks , tidied house a bit etc etc even watched an episode of mobland .
Also cause I’m on turn 200 plus the Ai shots taken are say 30-45 secs a turn .
There goes another hour and a half .

Which is more than Goerbles mythical
10,000 sign in 09:00 and then
sign out at 10:00 for another 10,000 to log in….

You know I never thought about this possibility... Maybe Civ7 has 10 million concurrent players but they all take 1 minute gameplay intervals in turns so as to neatly line up for us in the statistics. How considerate if you think about it