Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Leucarum]

My only wish is that streamers should tell if they are sponsored. They should also tell if they are independent (non-sponsored) to build trust.

That's what I was thinking of TBH. The streamers I watched in the runup to Civ7's release were all pretty open about their involvement with Firaxis, and most were somewhat critical in their reviews so hence my critical response to the argument that they were in their pockets.

 

[queenpea]

I believe honest streamers do this. I don't watch video games streams, but I sometimes watch TTRPG videos and content makers there usually are quite straightforward about what they are paid for and what aren't.

Laws regarding the disclosure of sponsored content vary country to country. In my experience, almost all streamers disclose when they are compensated for their content.

Some countries, like the UK, are more strict with these laws than other countries.

 

[Crashdummy]

Laws regarding the disclosure of sponsored content vary country to country. In my experience, almost all streamers disclose when they are compensated for their content.

Some countries, like the UK, are more strict with these laws than other countries.

I see a lot of disclosure of sponsored content in twitch, but very little on youtube

 

[aieeegrunt]

When streamers post VII-friendly content, it's "their job", or worse. When they don't, it's taken as relevant?

Why?

Streamers tend to go where the audience goes because it’s where the revenue is. If they are focusing on 7 it’s because there is a larger potential there

If they are ditching 7 it’s the opposite

The exceptions there are ones who either don’t care about popularity, or they are getting enough bribes that they don’t care.

 

[Gorbles]

Streamers tend to go where the audience goes because it’s where the revenue is. If they are focusing on 7 it’s because there is a larger potential there

If they are ditching 7 it’s the opposite

The exceptions there are ones who either don’t care about popularity, or they are getting enough bribes that they don’t care.

That isn't quite what I asked. I'll try to rephrase.

If streamers go where the money is, why does any other motivation matter? Why do folks who aren't streamers need to insinuate things without proof about streamers? What's the point?

 

[King of Prussia]

If someone is still playing Civ 7 and making content on it at this point, then they enjoy the game. They arent being constantly paid by Firaxis to play the game. Thats super expensive. All the YT/streamers i watch disclose if they get content for free to review/show off. That doesnt stop them from being critical either.

They will throw money at YT/Streamers when they feel like its time to push the game again, like with a massive patch/expansion. Maybe they will do some for the smaller DLCs, but it wouldnt be near as much

 

[aieeegrunt]

If someone is still playing Civ 7 and making content on it at this point, then they enjoy the game. They arent being constantly paid by Firaxis to play the game. Thats super expensive. All the YT/streamers i watch disclose if they get content for free to review/show off. That doesnt stop them from being critical either.

They will throw money at YT/Streamers when they feel like its time to push the game again, like with a massive patch/expansion. Maybe they will do some for the smaller DLCs, but it wouldnt be near as much

Then the size of the audience they are getting should be yet another indicator of how good (or bad) the game is doing.

 

[itix]

I found something interesting: Civ 7 made it back to the UK retailer charts.

Published 2nd June, Civ 7 was #34. This was a week before Switch 2.

Published 10th June, Civ 7 was nowhere in the list. This was when Switch 2 made its debut.
Published 16th June, Civ 7 was back at #35.

Published 24th June, Civ climbed to #26.

Published 30th June, Civ was down to #36.

Published 8th July, Civ was gone from the list.

It seems that Civ 7, with the June update, gained new customers. PC is the best selling platform in physical copies, and Switch 1 is outselling PS5. In February, PS5 outsold PC and Switch combined.

And no, 5-10% of Switch 2 players did not buy Civ7. Sorry ChatGPT!

The full charts in order:

UK Charts: It's The Final Week Before The Switch 2 Floodgates Open

It's almost here...

www.nintendolife.com

UK Charts: Nintendo Switch 2 Annihilates The Competition In Its Debut Week

Mario Kart World grabs the gold

www.nintendolife.com

UK Charts: Yes, Two Mario Kart Games Are In The Top Ten

Double whammy

www.nintendolife.com

UK Charts: There's No Stopping Mario Kart World And Switch 2

Still not ready to Switch 2 something else

www.nintendolife.com

UK Charts: Hideo Kojima's Latest Project Leaves Mario Kart World Stranded In 2nd

A total voidout

www.nintendolife.com

UK Charts: Tony Hawk Puts Up A Gnarly Debut, But There's No Catching Mario Kart World

Bro Skater

www.nintendolife.com

 

[King of Prussia]

Then the size of the audience they are getting should be yet another indicator of how good (or bad) the game is doing.

Depends. For some, their audience is there for only one game/franchise and anything else they lose most of their viewers. Others it doesnt really matter.

 

[fantsu]

It seems that Civ 7, with the June update, gained new customers. PC is the best selling platform in physical copies

There is no physical copy on PC. PS5 is debatable.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

That isn't quite what I asked. I'll try to rephrase.

If streamers go where the money is, why does any other motivation matter? Why do folks who aren't streamers need to insinuate things without proof about streamers? What's the point?

Oh come on... your line of questionning is silly in the first place

People are bringing up the fact that larger streamers are moving away from VII content are using that to point to the fact that the game is unpopular and the market for Civ VII content is drying up. Those who bring up the fact that streamers are bias because content is their job and they are given preferential access to media for advertising purposes are pointing out something entirely different in the context of a completely different conversation...

Why are you conflating the two? Is it just to not face the reality that the same sychophant streamers that spent months being flown around the US to sing Firaxis' praise have all largely disappeared once the dust settled and the game was a divisive and unpopular mess they couldn't make much money from?

 

[Bug Repellent]

If someone is still playing Civ 7 and making content on it at this point, then they enjoy the game. They arent being constantly paid by Firaxis to play the game. Thats super expensive. All the YT/streamers i watch disclose if they get content for free to review/show off. That doesnt stop them from being critical either.

They will throw money at YT/Streamers when they feel like its time to push the game again, like with a massive patch/expansion. Maybe they will do some for the smaller DLCs, but it wouldnt be near as much

It actually doesn't bother me at all if streamers get paid by Firaxis. In fact, I hope they do. I also don't mind if they don't disclose the sponsorship. All I care about is the entertainment value of the stream.

What is very obvious to me is how little traction Civ7 has on YT compared to Civ6. Five months post release, Civ6 had a very healthy streaming community, to the point of being overcrowded. The Game Mechanic, Quill, Boesthius, Potato, Broyar, TheCivLifeR, Marbozir, etc. Civ7 is nearly dead by comparison. This is why I seriously doubt the game is doing well on consoles.

 

[Gorbles]

Why are you conflating the two? Is it just to not face the reality that the same sychophant streamers that spent months being flown around the US to sing Firaxis' praise have all largely disappeared once the dust settled and the game was a divisive and unpopular mess they couldn't make much money from?

I'm not conflating anything. I'm trying to explore the dissonance. "look them moving away from the game means something" doesn't make much sense if you don't value the content they make in the first place, or have to accuse them of being "sycophants".

These arguments seem to want to have it both ways. That the game only got coverage in the first place because people were paid to cover it, and that coverage is now down because content creators follow the money.

I believe content creators the money, because these people do this work (in various cases) as their day job. I do not believe that anytime they ever say anything about Civ VII it's because they were paid to do so. I believe there was genuine interest (and therefore potential viewers) at the start.

Do you?

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I'm not conflating anything. I'm trying to explore the dissonance. "look them moving away from the game means something" doesn't make much sense if you don't value the content they make in the first place, or have to accuse them of being "sycophants".

These arguments seem to want to have it both ways. That the game only got coverage in the first place because people were paid to cover it, and that coverage is now down because content creators follow the money.

I believe content creators the money, because these people do this work (in various cases) as their day job. I do not believe that anytime they ever say anything about Civ VII it's because they were paid to do so. I believe there was genuine interest (and therefore potential viewers) at the start.

Do you?

You absolutely are trying to conflate the two. You can get upset that people don't "respect" streamers or whatever but there literally no dissonance or contradiction whatsoever in holding these two completely seperate beliefs. Streamers are bias because they are given preferential access to the media which makes them money and in many cases are often are literal paid and given benefits by large corpos to advertise for them. That is a completely seperate point and issue from the fact that most large streamers are moving away from this game now that it proved unpopular and the audience for such content is drying up.

This is not a case of having it both ways, it's a case of you trying to draw a non-existent contradiction between two seperate issues. Literally no one ITT (that I see) has even made the argument that streamers ONLY covered VII because they were being directly paid to.. The argument against streamers most of the time was about them being biased because they were given preferential access to media and remaining relatively positive about the media they're advertising is how the maintain such access, which again has nothing to do with the point that major streamers are moving away from the game because its proven unpopular and the revenue for streaming it is drying up without an audience. They are two completely seperate points that you are obviously trying to conflate unsuccesfully.

 

[Gorbles]

You can get upset that people don't "respect" streamers

I'm not upset at all. You have a habit of assuming emotions when the argument is logical. I'm not appealing to any emotion here. Not that it's bad to have emotions, of course. We're not robots

but there literally no dissonance or contradiction whatsoever in holding these two completely seperate beliefs.

They're not separate at all. Believing content creators are biased is incredibly relevant to trying to claim it's bad for VII that they're not covering it anymore.

If you like and value content creators, I'd understand it. But you don't, seemingly. And more than that, it's not just that you don't like or value them. You actively believe that the integrity of their opinions is compromised.

Literally no one ITT has even made the argument that streamers ONLY covered VII because they were paid (though the potential making money absolutely does factor into what content major streamers will graviate towards) .

You just put in brackets the thing you said people weren't doing. I get it, you've worded it defensively. You've covered yourself in case of any pedantic linguistics. But you're still attributing cause. Functionally.

I'm not conflating anything. You want to have it both ways. You believe streamers to be so biased that this undermines the value of their content, or the integrity of their perspective. But you also want me to care that these biased streamers are no longer covering VII? Why? This is not a consistent position as far as content creators go.

If content creators are so biased that we cannot trust the integrity of their platform, then why should I care that they're moving onto different games? I get that it makes VII look bad or whatever. Is that it? Is that the only thing that's relevant here? That it looks bad?

Why do you care? Shouldn't your position be that the game is better off without them? That the game should be good on its own merits?

They are two completely seperate points you are obviously trying to conflate and its not fooling anyone.

I'm not trying to fool anyone. Your arguments would be stronger if you could avoid these attempts at undermining other posters by assuming things falsely about their motivations.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

They're not separate at all. Believing content creators are biased is incredibly relevant to trying to claim it's bad for VII that they're not covering it anymore.

No they absolutely are seperate issues but thanks for finally admitting that you are in fact trying to conflate them

If you like and value content creators, I'd understand it. But you don't, seemingly. And more than that, it's not just that you don't like or value them. You actively believe that the integrity of their opinions is compromised.

Content streamers who are flown out to be given early access and given early copies of games to review for the sake of advertising for a corporation are absolutely biased. Their future access and partnership with the devolopers are contingent on them advertising the game well. This is media comphrension 101 stuff and again completely irrelevant from the fact that larger streamers are moving away from VII content because there is no audience to make money from

I'm not conflating anything. You want to have it both ways. You believe streamers to be so biased that this undermines the value of their content, or the integrity of their perspective. But you also want me to care that these biased streamers are no longer covering VII? Why? This is not a consistent position as far as content creators go.

You are absolutely conflating the two because again you're talkingabout two completely seperate issues. There is no having it both ways here. Whether or not I believe Streamers are biased is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the issue of major streamers moving away from making content for this game because it's unpopular and they can make more money streaming VI. These are two seperate points and positions you keep trying to pretend are contradictory for some silly reason

If content creators are so biased that we cannot trust the integrity of their platform, then why should I care that they're moving onto different games? I get that it makes VII look bad or whatever. Is that it? Is that the only thing that's relevant here? That it looks bad?

because their moving onto covering different games because VII has no audience. This fact has nothing to do with their biases and everything to do with the game's popularity . Again, there is no contradiction and "having it both ways" here, your entire argument is just not very good

Why do you care? Shouldn't your position be that the game is better off without them? That the game should be good on its own merits?

I'm not trying to fool anyone. Your arguments would be stronger if you could avoid these attempts at undermining other posters by assuming things falsely about their motivations.

Why do you care so much about trying to conflate two seperate issues and creating obvious strawmen like "shouldn't you think the game is better off without them?" and "shouldn't the game be good on its own merits?" to not deal with the fact that major streamers are moving away from the game because its unpopular?

 

[Gorbles]

No they absolutely are seperate issues but thanks for finally admitting that you are in fact trying to conflate them

I didn't admit anything of the sort. You really need to look at the argument posters you disagree with are making in good faith. If somebody has a different opinion to you, you can disagree with it without trying to frame it as some kind of fallacy.

Content streamers who are flown out to be given early access and given early copies of games to review for the sake of advertising for a corporation are absolutely biased.

Any more than someone who hates the fundamental mechanics of VII and wants the game to be completely rewritten?

I don't think so. Certainly, money wouldn't buy agreement from me, and I've been to plenty of pre-release demos for the years. None for Firaxis, mind you.

You might roll your eyes at this, but we all have bias. It's how we let it impact our opinions that's important. The existence of bias by itself means very little. Otherwise I could just tell you you're biased anytime you post on this subforum. And you could do the same to me. No?

Their future access and partnership with the devolopers are contingent on them advertising the game well.

Impossible to prove. A common assumption, and it can be correct. But it also can be incorrect. It's a claim that needs evidencing. Do you have evidence that Firaxis or 2K have coerced content creators into misrepresenting the product, or have forbidden them from expressing certain opinions? And if so, have content creators hidden or otherwise downplayed this coercion?

Major streamers graviate towards content that will make them money, that is quite different than the strawman you keep attacking where you think we believe they only make content because they're being directly paid by devolopers.

If you don't believe that they made VII-positive because they're paid to, and only do it because they honestly believe positive things about VII, then that's (finally) an answer to the question I asked you at the start of this tangent.

In that case, we agree. If not, and I've assumed incorrectly, then my apologies.

Streamers are biased is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the issue of major streamers moving away from making content for this game because it's unpopular and they can make more money streaming VI. These are two seperate points and positions you keep trying to pretend are contradictory for some silly reason

I keep saying that they're not. You keep saying that they are.

If streamers were as biased as you say they are, they wouldn't leave VII alone. And / or they'd keep ignoring the polarising opinions around VII.

So, logically, the truth must be somewhere in the middle. Which supports my argument that streamers are people who do a job, and are able to mitigate bias in order to produce content (the same as most, if not all, folks do).

Why do you care so much about trying to conflate two seperate issues and creating obvious strawmen like "shouldn't you think the game is better off without them?" and "shouldn't the game be good on its own merits?" to not deal with the fact that major streamers are moving away from the game because its unpopular?

I'll be the first to admit I sink too much time into tangents, hah. I also don't disengage from fruitless tangents as much as I should.

I talked a bit about the unpopularity argument in my post above. Your response was to claim that VII had no audience, which is patently false. I didn't see it as worth engaging with. The fact that other games make content creators more money does not mean VII has no audience. It mean it isn't profitable for content creators.

Do you want it to be?

I don't really care, personally. I want the game itself to improve and succeed over time. Content creators work on a different set of metrics to that. I know quite a bit about how demanding it is for those who do it full time as a job, and I don't begrudge them for the decisions they make in order to remain profitable (or to simply pay the bills, as the case often is).

The user reviews to me, are more concerning than whatever content creators are doing. VII could double it's daily numbers and VI might still be more profitable for content creators. It's not a measurement I find compelling at this point in time. This isn't the first time it's been raised as a point of conversation, either (and I'm being charitable calling it that). It kinda only works the once.

 

[lymond]

Moderator Action: Lazy and inane comments that add sub-zero value to the discussion are not tolerated here. -lymond

 

[Crashdummy]

I'm not conflating anything. I'm trying to explore the dissonance. "look them moving away from the game means something" doesn't make much sense if you don't value the content they make in the first place, or have to accuse them of being "sycophants".

These arguments seem to want to have it both ways. That the game only got coverage in the first place because people were paid to cover it, and that coverage is now down because content creators follow the money.

I believe content creators the money, because these people do this work (in various cases) as their day job. I do not believe that anytime they ever say anything about Civ VII it's because they were paid to do so. I believe there was genuine interest (and therefore potential viewers) at the start.

Do you?

My problem is the clear dissonance that not only content creators, but critics review had with the playerbase

Critic reviews had an 80 rating and most content creators praised the game, yet both steam user reviews and metacritic score are way below that. In case of content creators, since they are less amount, it might be that they are not in touch with the playerbase opinion and their fanatism and bias (and maybe a sentiment that if they are too critical they will not get invited to earlytesting anymore) led them to make mistakes

But i do think the critic reviews were paid, just like Dragon Age did. Any time critic ratings are 3 or more point afar from player ratings, i smell something fishy

 

[AD1730]

My problem is the clear dissonance that not only content creators, but critics review had with the playerbase

Critic reviews had an 80 rating and most content creators praised the game, yet both steam user reviews and metacritic score are way below that. In case of content creators, since they are less amount, it might be that they are not in touch with the playerbase opinion and their fanatism and bias (and maybe a sentiment that if they are too critical they will not get invited to earlytesting anymore) led them to make mistakes

But i do think the critic reviews were paid, just like Dragon Age did. Any time critic ratings are three or more point afar from player ratings, i smell something fishy

We’ve gone full circle on gaming media. Gaming Youtube grew because traditional outlets lost credibility. Now gaming Youtube is losing credibility in the same way.