Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,388
How much money did they spend on producing this thing?
Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread
- Thread starter protocol7
- Start date
Disgustipated
Deity
Considering they didn't when Civ 5 was mostly hated out of the gate, I seriously doubt that. At least one proper expansion is coming I expect.
Civ5 on release was panned by Civ4 players, but was pretty well received by the general public as a whole. It had good reviews, good sales, and the number one controversial aspect (1UPT) was heavily praised by everyone who was coming in new to the franchise. None of that applies to Civ7.
Fair enough doubt away , thou for the record I dont believe Civ 5 Civ 6 was anywhere near "hated" as this version .
There also has never been any game I can think let alone a "civ" game that had options so soon after release to disable some of there key new "features"
Shows you how poorly received the launch was. They basically added a walk-back page.
Yea you may well get another cash grab Dlc and even perhaps a last gasp expansion then it's beyond earth for this one .
With the amount of decent games coming out all the time, I just dont see the money men doubling down and holding on for years until this mess is any were near playable IMHO
So did VII, though. Just look at all the awards on the Steam store page. Metacritic is at 79/100, which is "generally favorable". OpenCritic is at 76% recommend. There's a whole list of reviewers on Steam and Wikipedia that gave it 4/5 or 5/5 ratings.
But critical acclaim doesn't always translate into player acclaim.
The other controversial aspect was the AI, which was hyper aggressive and yet so incompetent that you pretty much couldn't ever lose a game if you put in even minimal effort. And there just wasn't much to do. Civ V on release was boring.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Civ7 also received critical acclaim
1UPT wasn't number one controversial aspect. Number one controversial aspect was awful quality on release. Look at Civ7 initial reception and double it. Civ5 has performance issues, carpet of doom was terrible, late game was completely untested.
To get insights on the problems, you could look at some post-mortem interviews with people who designed Civ5.
bumpyglint
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2016
- Messages
- 228
Lol literally no. First results on google searching "Civilization VII review":
- IGN - 7/10
- Aftermath - no vote, simply calls the game "bad"
- Eurogamer - 2/5
- The guardian - 5/5 (it's the only "critical acclaim", but I would definitely not consider the guardian a good game reviewer...)
- Metacritic - 79
- The sixthaxis - 7/10
- Audience review 1.7
Stuff like 7/10 and even a 2/5 is definitely not critical acclaim.
Literally searching "Civilization V Review"
- IGN - 9/10 (2010 review, no expansions at that time)
- PC gamer - 93% (2010 review)
- Metacritic - 90% (2010 review)
- Eurogamer - 8/10 (2010 review)
Those are literally the first google results, it's not cherry picking.
I highlighted many more good reviews already. There are more on Steam and Wikipedia. The game received very good critical reviews overall, though not quite as good as Civ V.
Last edited:
Disgustipated
Deity
And another thing I thought of is maybe the game is popular on consoles. Anyone have any info on that? It's obvious the game will never do well on steam, it's dead in the water there.
MutilationWave
IDDQD
There is so little info on console sales and none on player numbers. I've seen people claim anything from 2 million console sales to nearly everyone that's playing is on PC so it's negligible.
I'm glad the console players got the game but I have to wonder how much the porting cost us in terms of a more complete and polished release.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,138
Best we know is overall reviews of the game for consoles are roughly in line with steam reviews (<50% positive)
Based on what, though?
VII is an masterpiece compared to V at release. You could actually start the game and play it.
It took almost six months for me to be able to start V up. And after that I really didnt care. Low quality graphics and watered down gameplay and nonexistent AI made me skip it. Made Civ:Rev look like a real game.
It took almost six months for me to be able to start V up. And after that I really didnt care. Low quality graphics and watered down gameplay and nonexistent AI made me skip it. Made Civ:Rev look like a real game.
TylertheDestroyer
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2025
- Messages
- 36
Even ignoring the incredibly overwhelmingly negative user reviews (which would be silly in this context), Civ VII is the worst rated Civ critically.... Metacritic and Opencritic averaging the scores in the 70s.
Their respective Playstation and Xbox store pages
protocol7
King
In the end, yesterday there were 9 positive reviews and 50 negative ones (15% positive), continuing the trend of more and more negative reviews each day since the new patch, both in raw numbers and especially as a % positive.
Current Steam store state:
Current Steam store state:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,138
It's looking like the patch might have been over hyped, and people are starting to lose faith things can be fixed looking at the numbers.
Or perhaps because they probably represent new people trying the game, it's simply confirmation that the new changes aren't moving the dial for the majority of people who've steered clear so far.
Either way not good news, but what is good news is the concurrent players haven't dropped straight back down after a day this time - around 2k player bump has been sustained for 3 days now
I see 12 positive and 28 negative. Does that mean at least 22 players got a refund? That would mean a 33% refund rate at the very least. Or am I missing something?
Similar threads
