Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[socratic]

Makes sense. In Civ 6, you could automatically lay roads using caravans, but there was no similar concept to lay railroads.

Or automated workers. The AI has it, so why can't the player?

Besides the core gameplay changes, a lot of the new features looked like they were developed to address the problems in Civ 6. Commanders and the new tile improvement system reduce the tedium, Happiness is a direct improvement from Amenities, etc.

 

[Nineliveslost]

According to Gamalytic, 89% of Civ VI players have Civ VI.

It would be interesting if we knew the demographic age groups and compare that to Civ VI.

Well I hope 100% of the Civ 6 players have Civ 6

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I don't know if I agree that snowballing is just a multiplayer issue. It really made the end game uninteresting and probably contributed to players stopping early. As devs, if they were putting work into a 1/3 of the game that players never saw I can see why they'd want to try and address that. I'm dubious that multiplayer was their big drive, though undoubtedly a side goal, since the changes are just as valid for single player too..

I think the bigger issue is that they didn't achieve their goals.

1. Reduce snowballing with age reset. Snowballing is just as bad, maybe worse. It just depends on building for age transitions which is a mindset shift...
2. Avoid problem with differences between early and late game civs with civilization switch. I'll give them this one...
3. Allow playing shorter multiplayer games with age reset. It still isn't satisfying to play single age games, but the era change is an obvious point to just stop playing altogether, rather than just take a pause.
4. Make people actually finish their games with switching their goals. I finish way fewer games than I did in 6. So I don't think they managed that. Would be curious if my experience is shared with others though? I think eras just create such a natural stopping point, and also if you don't see a fun civ to continue with... Why bother? I think the momentos/unlocks were the main driver for finishing games for me.
5. Age reset and civilization switch just work together well. They do I guess, but they've alienated so many players it wasn't worth it IMO.

With Hero-Leaders mode you would solve two problems in one. If you lose your Hero, the game ends AND if you conquer/slain another civilization Leader-Hero, you get to choose
at the next Age reset if want to become that civilization.

Unlock of more relics kinds, introduce a new Archeologist unit, like an advanced Scout, that could "see" the relics, and then you would need to send a convoy to get it.
The "relic" could be beneath an ancient city building, like a library, or in a cave in the jungle or tundra... Exploration Age is so underdeveloped in my eyes...
it should open up to all ages... Aztec gold is just relics, turned into Isabella gold coins... An Inca could do the same with a European civ Relic if it was made of Gold... like some ancient statues... or Pharaoh objects... or English King staff... it needs to be re-balanced... Hero-Leaders and Conquistadores are the next Kings Richard and its Crusaders... why restrict it to an Age?
Massive overhaul needed.

Civ switching instead can be fixed by allowing simultaneous start to all civs, then retain civ switch if you get to conquer another civ (with or without its Leader-Hero) but the cool thing about Leaders-Hero, is that you Civ could still survive, if you can stay hidden somewhere, and Also have some Attack and Defence, and could maybe gain a settle new city ability, and re-start your civ in a well isolated spot, and no-one gets your civ traits...

Besides, point 5 is even a problem? It sounds like "Oh, there is this problem people is talking, but it's not really a problem" situation...

Summit with SID, talking about how Civ III really struck the perfect balance...

 

[bumpyglint]

In Italy the game is at 29€ on Amazon for PS5 (no particular changes for Xbox), a really low price for the Country.

Spoiler :

Again this doesn't make me feel like the game is selling well on consoles

 

[Lazy sweeper]

SwitchII version still sells for min. 49 Eur for the Digital version.


From NintendoLife website, when announcing Civ VII will be a code in a box, and not even Game Key card is avail.

Another Switch 2 "Code-In-Box" Physical Release Appears Online

This time for Civilization VII

www.nintendolife.com

• SuntannedDuck2
• Fri 9th May 2025

While pointless I sometimes think 'why not just have a poster/box with a pamplet the paper without the code to tell people to buy it digital' then a download code. I know it's stupid but i mean it's just as meaningless as a download code.

But yeah if just like others have said of get Switch 1 and upgrade pack, buy pass it entirely. Not surprised.

Sigh like Switch 1 avoiding. Other then Drawn To Life Two Realms or NFS Hot Pursuit 2010 Remastered (to see both internet required and download code) I was never going to get either anyway. At least NFS it's just MP, and SP is on the cart so I can use the 1.0 version on the cart and still play.

Like do they really want retail customers money that badly, clearly not if they offer download codes and people go 'nah pass' that's whatever percentage that will and those that won't leading to lost sales right there versus digital sales. I mean if a download code, the box, artwork and art/paper for the download code costs that much, why have a retail presence at all?

What for physical type customers? The people that are new to Civ then the ones that are aware of Civ and buy physical, see this and go nah pass. The percentage and types of people vary but I mean come on. As if advertising isn't as eh as it is for gaming these days and how casual people do things I mean.... What do they expect to gain from cutting costs and particular messaging and download code ok with casuals and those that aren't.

I think I saw a mother that went nope to a download code once in store (different to the one I saw ask me about V Bucks via the PS store or wallet cards and had a Dualsense in box in hand), if some people are that way and aren't that aware of gaming that's lost sales by companies expecting ALL casuals to do so when they won't, some people are particular and determine that value or using a system with internet/online either. Some won't so some never access the eshop either. That's lost sales right there. Not just parental controls or those not tech aware either. I think some people may just have such values and go nope. I'm just theorising of course but some people fit into some sort of mindset as such to be possible like that.

Civ is different sure but if like Mario Rabbids or Pacman Re-Pac or others then yeah in a way that's lost sales by their own stupidity as companies thinking all casuals will bend over for them. Not all will, not just gaming aware hardcore like us.

Offer a card or have a piece of paper/poster on the shelf but retailers probably won't work with those posters/shelf space taken up with no code and for companies it's not good enough messaging even though download codes are enough 'we don't care' messaging as can get.

Companies are just lazy and dodgy. Why bother. Civ 7 is 'getting there' but the changes are odd and it takes time to fix it.

Why support such nonsense from 2K/Take Two.

I mean the Meta version is unique to it but otherwise we don't even get alternate versions on hardware anymore besides VR or phones nowadays. Not that the current ones are GOOD as much to me PS2/Wii/PSP ones were better, even sometimes then HD PS3/360/PC versions.

just another Switch owner comment...

• 
  5
• tylerryan79
• Fri 9th May 2025

What's the point? Clearly Collector's aren't the only people who buy physical, and clearly most physical collectors will pass on the code in box release. So these are for those people who randomly check out the games section at a store, and impulse buy. So there must be a large enough audience of those type of buyers to warrent even doing this type of "physical" release.

I think that eventually these types of releases will fade in popularity among the publishers. I hope once they start to see their sales diminish in the physical sector, and they don't see an uptick in the digital sales that offsets it, they will go back to doing atleast some game data on the cart type of releases, or all data on the cart.

They also had the So called switch tax. They should just do that. If it really costs $10 more per game to release it physical, I'd pay that for it to be physical. Or they can just stop being dumb and release a physical.

Civ vi is 100% a game I'd have bought physical, and likely never play more than a few hours, preferring to play this type of game on pc. There's many games that fall into this category that I will now not have to buy and waste my money, since they'll all likely do this code in a box crap.

 

[Atchulhu]

Again this doesn't make me feel like the game is selling well on consoles

I mean, VII was 125th on the PSN ranks in its launch week (where Civ games always see their highest popularity), so it isn't just a matter of feeling. The game barely made a ripple, let alone a splash, on non-PC platforms. It has always been an overwhelmingly PC-centric series, so that isn't a surprise when the game as a whole bombed so hard.

On PC, VII having half the release week numbers of VI on Steam Charts when the Steam platform grew by 400% in the time since VI released is... abysmal, to say the least.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

SteamDB data for the period from July 1 to 16:

243 positive reviews
419 negative reviews

= 36.7% positive reviews

This is from Steam DataBase, which I understand uses a slightly different methodology than Steam in terms of which reviews it counts.

 

[firadin]

One thought I just had: Civ 6 has been free on Epic multiple times. I wonder how that affects people's reliance on Steam play numbers, since a way larger proportion of people have Civ 6 on Epic than have Civ 7 on Epic.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

One thought I just had: Civ 6 has been free on Epic multiple times. I wonder how that affects people's reliance on Steam play numbers, since a way larger proportion of people have Civ 6 on Epic than have Civ 7 on Epic.

I went a little ways down the rabbit hole of seeing if I can find data related to concurrent users on Epic. All I could confirm is that Epic makes concurrent player data available to the developer of the game (there are instructions on Epic Online Services for how the developers can collect and track this data), but doesn't seem to make it available to the general public. This seems to be part of their promise to developers, as part of the pitch for why developers should consider publishing their game through Epic Online Service is that they will not share data about the game with any other party.

This seems to extend to not sharing how many players have reviewed a game. For example, I can see that on Epic, Civ 6 is rated 4.7 out of 5 by Epic users and Civ 7 is rated 4.0 out of 5 by Epic users, but I can't see how many reviews have been left, nor can I read the individual reviews. Maybe if I was logged into Epic I could get more information.

 

[Kwami]

For example, I can see that on Epic, Civ 6 is rated 4.7 out of 5 by Epic users and Civ 7 is rated 4.0 out of 5 by Epic users, but I can't see how many reviews have been left, nor can I read the individual reviews. Maybe if I was logged into Epic I could get more information.

That 4/5 lines up well with a lot of the "professional" reviews, too. Maybe the Steam reviews are the outlier.

 

[Wrenched]

Epic's Store review system operates a little differently. Not every player can review. The system will randomly select some players that have played for greater than 2 hours and ask them to add a review. So for each title it is only a small portion of the engaged player base.

To me that skews the reviews towards the positive direction as those that had technical issues, or really disliked a game after a short period, or stopped playing for any reason will never be part of the pool of randomly selected reviewers.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

That 4/5 lines up well with a lot of the "professional" reviews, too. Maybe the Steam reviews are the outlier.

Maybe, but there are over 44,000 Steam reviews versus 101 "professional" reviews per Metacritic. Those professional reviews do have an average score of 7.9 out of 10, so bang in line with Epic games 4 out 5. On the other hand, there are 355 user reviews on Metacritic and those give a score of 3.8 out of 10, which in itself seems a generous way to score the game since those reviews break out into 23% favourable (83 reviews), 16% neutral (56 reviews), and 61% unfavourable (216 reviews).

I don't know how many user reviews make up the Epic score or to what extent the Epic review system, as referenced by @Wrenched, may have affected the numbers, but I'd be surprised if Steam doesn't represent the largest observable pool of player feedback. Just so far today alone there have been 19 user reviews on Steam (4 positive, 15 negative). Yesterday there were 39 (14 positive, 25 negative). Steam is giving a large and steady stream of data on player experience with Civ 7 and the message from that data stream has been pretty consistent since at least March (February reviews were generally more positive than subsequent reviews).

 

[fantsu]

I guess it comes to how people personally view different kind if users and platforms. I myself rely Steam the least. :/

 

[Atchulhu]

Professional reviews have been worthless ever since access media became instrumental to making a living as a critic. That goes for all forms of entertainment, not just gaming. Critics can't afford to upset the big studios because they risk losing access to the early releases, cast interviews, insider news and such that are required to be a professional critic, so they're essentially forced to give positive reviews to almost everything. Once in a rare while, some product is so uniquely ill-favored that they'll join the negativity bandwagon for the sake of maintaining their own credibility; but by and large, the existence of their jobs is predicated on a willingness to giving glowing reviews to anything made by creators who have clout in the industry. It's why objectively failed entertainment products like Amazon's The Rings of Power or games like Diablo IV and indeed Civilization VII receive reviews that suggest they're a great success, while anyone who doesn't have a financial interest in kowtowing to the industry knows that these are massive failures that in no way lived up to their predecessors, development process or retail price.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I guess it comes to how people personally view different kind if users and platforms. I myself rely Steam the least. :/

For me, it's the pattern of Steam reviews that is telling a tale.

I thought the February reviews were negatively impacted by a number of transitory factors. The UI was in a bad state on release and a lot of negative reviews commented on this. There was also some negative reviews related to some of the leaders, although not a huge number. And there were lots of negative reviews related to civ-switching that I thought at the time included some knee-jerk reactions by people who didn't like the concept but hadn't yet seen how it would play out in the actual game. As these factors died down and the UI got polished with patches and the game found its audience, I expected the ratio of positive-to-negative reviews to trend upwards.

Instead, the opposite has happened. Which suggests that civ-switching as implemented, and not just as an idea, doesn't work for a lot of people who have been trying Civ 7 and that of the people who have been trying Civ 7 out, the percentage that are excited enough about the game to post a positive review continues to lag the number of disappointed people.

On the positive side for Firaxis, the steady stream of new reviews on Steam suggests that they are continuing to sell copies of the game. I'm sure the sales numbers are below what they want, but they may (or may not) be above the continued cost of game development. And the installed base to which they can sell future DLCs is continuing to grow, not just on Steam but presumably also on other platforms like Epic and consoles.

I have to believe, though, that the observable data from Steam reviews and concurrent player counts reflects an environment in which Civ 7 is struggling to find its player base. I find it unlikely that the game is being received better in the unobservable parts of the market. It may be - and I hope for those who love Civ 7 that it is - doing well enough to get a long lifespan with many future expansions. But I think that will be much more likely if Steam reviews and player counts start trending upward later this year than if they stay the same this fall as they've been through the spring and summer (all seasons Northern Hemisphere-centric).

 

[stealth_nsk]

One thought I just had: Civ 6 has been free on Epic multiple times. I wonder how that affects people's reliance on Steam play numbers, since a way larger proportion of people have Civ 6 on Epic than have Civ 7 on Epic.

Civ6 was free on Epic only once before, in 2020 and base game only (this week is the first to offerplatinum). I don't think it has much difference from Steam's lowest price of $3.

 

[itix]

On the positive side for Firaxis, the steady stream of new reviews on Steam suggests that they are continuing to sell copies of the game. I'm sure the sales numbers are below what they want, but they may (or may not) be above the continued cost of game development. And the installed base to which they can sell future DLCs is continuing to grow, not just on Steam but presumably also on other platforms like Epic and consoles.

Gamalytic estimates Civ 7 is selling ~3,000 copies / week. Sales are low, player counts are low, but there's still a nice monthly income.

 

[itix]

Civ6 was free on Epic only once before, in 2020 and base game only (this week is the first to offerplatinum). I don't think it has much difference from Steam's lowest price of $3.

I returned to the Civ franchise with the free Epic offering, but it was sitting unused on my HD for some months... I mean, I was interested, but I was not committed to playing. I had other interests and games. After a few months of sitting idle, it was a bit of luck that I began playing it.

 

[Kwami]

Gamalytic estimates Civ 7 is selling ~3,000 copies / week. Sales are low, player counts are low, but there's still a nice monthly income.

Is 3,000 per month (for Steam only) low? I don't know what to compare it to. Is there another AAA game that was released about five months ago and that isn't on sale to compare against?

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Is 3,000 per month (for Steam only) low? I don't know what to compare it to. Is there another AAA game that was released about five months ago and that isn't on sale to compare against?

For reference, Civ VI* (not IV lol) is estimated to still be selling about 1.3k/week by gamalytic