Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Calcifer]

Well the graph is slightly misleading, no?
It makes it look like there's a small difference, but in actuality -

If you take a close look you can tell that Civ7 now has about half of the total amount than Civ5 had at the same time, and about a third to Civ6.

It has the lowest total player count in sheer quantity.
If you consider Civ7 to have been the largest release so far then it would also be the lowest in relative percentage.
Now I don't strictly know if it's the biggest release so far, I don't have the stats but I think it's a reasonable guess.

Now, we aren't counting Console stats which may make up a reasonable margin of concurrent players and total release amount.

Is it a failure from just player count numbers alone? No. Is it bad? Clearly yes, and there's no glossing over it. Let's reality check - you can tell the Civ6 dwarfed the Civ5 numbers, it must've had a bigger release and more hype behind it. So you should expect Civ7 to match or beat Civ6.

What you shouldn't be seeing is Civ7 failing to even hit the lowest numbers on that particular Civ6 graph, even at its peak, and then going far below the Civ5 metrics, which came out almost 15 years prior with a famously awful launch, and a relatively smaller player base than Sid Meier's Civilisation series has now.

So, while I reasonably think that the reality is maybe slightly better than the numbers suggest, the numbers aren't promising and I'm certain they're worried over at FXS HQ... But they will probably save it like they always do.

I was talking about the graph shape, not the actual numbers. For both civ 6 and civ 5 the player count has been dropping to their lowest for the first year. It started rising later, probably due the first heavy discounts, bundles and updates coming.

I’m not commenting on absolute numbers because I think there are too many variables underneath and it’s too difficult to get a feeling of where we are.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Steam reviews trending more negative, even if it’s slightly, is still news. It’s just not what one would expect for a game ongoing regular patch updates.

If we assume this trend is statistically significant, it's not news. We got peak positive reviews in the first week and afterwards the game started gaining slightly more negative reviews than positive ones. Patch caused a bit more reviews and on patch day they were even more positive ones than negative ones, but on the scale of the day it's even more random, so I wouldn't count.

A part of me wondered if, when the Founder’s Edition stopped being available, and as a consequence the game no longer had a $120 “price tag,” could this improve players’ impression of value for money?

First, it's $130, second it's hard to say. The best info we have is the ChatGPT analysis we had in the original thread. Price was one of the reasons, but it only affects people who just bought the game and I'd guess the main battle for reviews now happens among those who already owns it.

 

[queenpea]

First, it's $130, second it's hard to say.

My bad, I spent more money than I realized

If we assume this trend is statistically significant, it's not news. We got peak positive reviews in the first week and afterwards the game started gaining slightly more negative reviews than positive ones. Patch caused a bit more reviews and on patch day they were even more positive ones than negative ones, but on the scale of the day it's even more random, so I wouldn't count.

I contend that reviews trending negatively is, in fact, news to some readers here. The choice to dismiss it as insignificant or unimportant is within your rights, but I question the need to push back on every point that doesn’t confirm your theory of the case.

If, as you say, the number of negative reviews is very small, and that we shouldn’t read too much into it, that is fine. But this also means that the positive review number is even smaller. In any case, a small overall number of reviews also indicates a small number of people purchasing the game. This number is backed up by the small number of people playing the game. Spring and Easter holidays are happening now, and we don’t see a boost from the availability of players either.

Frankly, consider yourself in the shoes of a new buyer on Steam today. The game has a 49-ish rating on Steam, and the majority of players (reviews trending more negatively than positively) who are brave enough to buy it despite the Steam rating are unsatisfied with the experience.

My point isn’t infallible, and I am not pretending to be an expert. This isn’t a court of law, and I’m not here to defend my thesis. Just looking around the room, taking a moment to soak it all in, it just feels like vibes just aren’t vibing.

 

[MutilationWave]

Steam reviews trending more negative, even if it’s slightly, is still news. It’s just not what one would expect for a game ongoing regular patch updates.

A part of me wondered if, when the Founder’s Edition stopped being available, and as a consequence the game no longer had a $120 “price tag,” could this improve players’ impression of value for money?

As a longtime fan of the series, even I found the $120 version to be disappointing and I had a hard time recommending the Founder’s Edition to other players.

I got founder's and I don't regret it. As many simple stupid problems that the game has, I love playing it.

I got it right after I lost my job so I've been playing a lot. My steam hours are absurd but I often leave the game on all day while I do other stuff so it isn't accurate. I'd say I've still already played hundreds of hours and it was worth the money.

But I would never recommend a $120 game to anyone unless they were a diehard civ fan. Even then, with all the problems, I would tell people to probably wait. I only know one other huge civ fan IRL and he hasn't even bought the game yet.

 

[queenpea]

I got founder's and I don't regret it. As many simple stupid problems that the game has, I love playing it.

I got it right after I lost my job so I've been playing a lot. My steam hours are absurd but I often leave the game on all day while I do other stuff so it isn't accurate. I'd say I've still already played hundreds of hours and it was worth the money.

But I would never recommend a $120 game to anyone unless they were a diehard civ fan. Even then, with all the problems, I would tell people to probably wait. I only know one other huge civ fan IRL and he hasn't even bought the game yet.

I’ve played the game a ton, and I don’t regret owning it, but I have certainly been disappointed by the DLC content / value for money. Similarly, it’s hard to “recommend” a game priced as it was.

 

[MutilationWave]

I’ve played the game a ton, and I don’t regret owning it, but I have certainly been disappointed by the DLC content / value for money. Similarly, it’s hard to “recommend” a game priced as it was.

Yeah the DLC value is very bad, even though Carthage is a top 3 civ for its era and Bulgaria is number one for exploration, in my opinion.

Maybe your can help clear something up for me. Founder's Edition gets the first two expansions included in the price, yes? Is the DLC so far considered crossroads of the world? Is crossroads of the world considered one of the two included expansions?

I asked something similar before and was told no the first expansion hasn't come out yet. I hope that's true.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Yeah the DLC value is very bad, even though Carthage is a top 3 civ for its era and Bulgaria is number one for exploration, in my opinion.

Maybe your can help clear something up for me. Founder's Edition gets the first two expansions included in the price, yes? Is the DLC so far considered crossroads of the world? Is crossroads of the world considered one of the two included expansions?

I asked something similar before and was told no the first expansion hasn't come out yet. I hope that's true.

Nah founders edition doesn't get the first two expansions, it gets crossroads and right to rule - the first 2 Civ packs basically. You will have to pay like everyone else if and when they do a big mechanics based expansion, and for any further Civ drops outside of crossroads and right to rule.

Right now the understanding is you'll get another 4 Civs and 2 leaders for your money that you don't already have access to, and that's it.

 

[MutilationWave]

Nah founders edition doesn't get the first two expansions, it gets crossroads and right to rule - the first 2 Civ packs basically. You will have to pay like everyone else if and when they do a big mechanics based expansion, and for any further Civ drops outside of crossroads and right to rule.

Right now the understanding is you'll get another 4 Civs and 2 leaders for your money that you don't already have access to, and that's it.

Wow that's weak. I misunderstood what I was buying. I would have bought it anyway though because it's Civ. Everything Civ, Doom, and Zelda automatically gets my money. Although depending on tariffs I might have to skip the Switch 2.

 

[queenpea]

Wow that's weak. I misunderstood what I was buying. I would have bought it anyway though because it's Civ. Everything Civ, Doom, and Zelda automatically gets my money. Although depending on tariffs I might have to skip the Switch 2.

FYI on Switch 2, I think Nintendo announced the US price is not increasing from whatever was announced initially. Of course, the tariff policies change unpredictably and often.

 

[itix]

The article claiming Civ7 was second best seller for PS, for example. Or Firaxis report on presale record.

Since then, there has been no good news. But there have been many negative signs that may indicate all is not well.

Or stat sites estimating sales to be 1M in the first month.

I think it was more like after 2 months. Nevertheless, they still estimate ~1M sales.

 

[user746383]

Since then, there has been no good news. But there have been many negative signs that may indicate all is not well.

Well that’s the nice thing about doubting any bad news I guess, you are unbound from any particular reality and can believe whatever you like. Doesn’t necessarily make for great discussion but you’re totally immune to anyone or any evidence convincing you of anything. Probably a handy talent if you work for PR or are a QAnon member or something.

 

[kaspergm]

Yeah the DLC value is very bad, even though Carthage is a top 3 civ for its era and Bulgaria is number one for exploration, in my opinion.

Well, the measure of the quality of an expansion pack should not be whether the civs are the most powerful or not. The stupid power creep we saw with Civ6 expansions, particularly the leader pass civs, really should be avoided imo.

 

[MutilationWave]

Well, the measure of the quality of an expansion pack should not be whether the civs are the most powerful or not. The stupid power creep we saw with Civ6 expansions, particularly the leader pass civs, really should be avoided imo.

When I say "top 3" or "the best" I mean nothing more than fun to play as. Power creep is terrible.

I should have made my meaning more clear, on reread it does sound like I'm saying they're the most powerful.

 

[bitula]

ARA is totally specific case. It was marketed as Civ competition, while actually being in totally different genre. That's why it got so many negative reviews on launch and that's why it recovered quickly afterwards.

Much more relevant example of game recovering through patching is Cyberpunk 2077.

OK, but CIV 7 is also a totally specific case. It was marketed as a Civ game, while actually being in totally different genre. That's why it got so many negative reviews on launch and because the new "genre" is not fun, it declined further.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Intend that reviews trending negatively is, in fact, news to some readers here. The choice to dismiss it as insignificant or unimportant is within your rights, but I question the need to push back on every point that doesn’t confirm your theory of the case.

1. Maybe it's news to some people here, but I don't see how it's relevant. By this logic, positive Firaxis report is also news for some people.

2. I don't dismiss anything. Even though the difference is statistically insignificant (by all reasonable standards), I totally acclaim the trend we see. Being statistically insignificant means you can't expect management to do actions based on those data, because they can't be trusted. It doesn't prevent any speculations based on it.

3. I don't have any theory. That's the thing people often clash with my posts. Everybody like to jump into conclusions, but in reality we have nearly zero information to base any assumptions on.

Since then, there has been no good news. But there have been many negative signs that may indicate all is not well.

We didn't have any bad news either. What we see after launch are natural trends.

I think it was more like after 2 months. Nevertheless, they still estimate ~1M sales.

They didn't update their information, so there's just no new estimation. My guess is that their Steam sales estimation was based on initial peak player number (85K), but this method only work at launch. After this those gaming sites sit in the same darkness as we.

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

Reading some of the argumentation in this thread is like looking out of the window on a sunny day and being told we still don’t have enough proof to say the sky is blue.

Anyway, while the datapoints will no doubt be assailed and written off as meaningless by some, here are some sales rank stats for the standard edition from the UK Amazon storefront:

PS5 version: #103 in PS5 games; #930 in PC and Video Games
Xbox version: #153 in Xbox games; #5,899 in PC and Video Games
Switch version: #292 in Switch games; #3,069 in PC and Video Games

The deluxe edition fares as follows:

PS5 version: #168 in PS5 games; #1,889 in PC and Video Games
Xbox version: #364 in Xbox games; #14,414 in PC and Video Games

Of all these, only the PS5 standard version has a steer to how many sales there have been recently: “100+ bought in the last month”. For comparison, the limited edition of Assassin’s Creed Shadows has sold “9k+” in the past month on PS5 and is at #18 in PC and Video Games. Compare and contrast.

 

[bitula]

I don't dismiss anything. Even though the difference is statistically insignificant (by all reasonable standards), I totally acclaim the trend we see.

But the decline in new purchase is significant. And paired with this, the later reviews are important - because they speak of the (potential) reason. Also 1M buyers are from initial sell likely due to people blindly buying the product based on trust and experience with previous series. Several perplexed customers expressed this.

 

[stealth_nsk]

@queenpea I have to apologize. I made some more math. If we don't take into account total number of players and just compare two samples of reviews (total and recent), the difference is statistically significant with reasonable confidence levels.

 

[queenpea]

@queenpea I have to apologize. I made some more math. If we don't take into account total number of players and just compare two samples of reviews (total and recent), the difference is statistically significant with reasonable confidence levels.

No need to apologize, I just think we have different takes on the vibes right now. Nothing against you personally, and I respect your opinion.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Reading some of the argumentation in this thread is like looking out of the window on a sunny day and being told we still don’t have enough proof to say the sky is blue.

Anyway, while the datapoints will no doubt be assailed and written off as meaningless by some, here are some sales rank stats for the standard edition from the UK Amazon storefront:

PS5 version: #103 in PS5 games; #930 in PC and Video Games
Xbox version: #153 in Xbox games; #5,899 in PC and Video Games
Switch version: #292 in Switch games; #3,069 in PC and Video Games

The deluxe edition fares as follows:

PS5 version: #168 in PS5 games; #1,889 in PC and Video Games
Xbox version: #364 in Xbox games; #14,414 in PC and Video Games

Of all these, only the PS5 standard version has a steer to how many sales there have been recently: “100+ bought in the last month”. For comparison, the limited edition of Assassin’s Creed Shadows has sold “9k+” in the past month on PS5 and is at #18 in PC and Video Games. Compare and contrast.

While I don't dismiss this data, the insights are really interesting, I'd try to clean up it first:
- The data covers only one store along many of them
- If I understand correctly, the data is about physical copies, not all of them? Not only physical copies are declining, but different games could have different physical to digital value
- It's great that we have at least some absolute numbers, all other sources perform with relative ones.
- So, based on 5 editions, only one of them having 100+ sales, we could point at about 300-400 physical copies for consoles sold in UK through Amazon
- If we take physical copies sales as 30% and Amazon sales as 30% of all physical copies and UK holding 4% of world game market, we end up with 80K console sales in the last month worldwide. But since we projected average numbers on Civilization, the range could actually be anything between 10K and 500K.

Anyway, those are the first absolute numbers we could scramble since the game launch and it's good. The only problem is that it's hard to say whether 80K per month are good sale number or not, providing it's console only, third month of the game and no discounts.

P.S. Comparison with Assassin’s Creed Shadows are incorrect, because this game is 1 month old, while Civ7 is more than 2 months.

No need to apologize, I just think we have different takes on the vibes right now. Nothing against you personally, and I respect your opinion.

That's what I'm trying to do - avoid the vibes and try to find data behind.

But the decline in new purchase is significant. And paired with this, the later reviews are important - because they speak of the (potential) reason. Also 1M buyers are from initial sell likely due to people blindly buying the product based on trust and experience with previous series. Several perplexed customers expressed this.

I haven't seen any data on purchase decline yet. The post above is the second piece of information ever giving us absolute numbers and since first was about Steam and this one is about consoles, they can't be compared with.

The decline in number of hours played follows standard trend for any other game (as discussed before where Civ7 was compared with Civ6 and Civ5 on their release).