Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Siptah]

Not really? The main points which are said to say that the player count is bad are

1. It has less players than VI & V. Counter: VI had less players than V for a long time and possibly less than IV for a period. V likely had less players than IV for a period of time too.
2. Player retention is bad. Counter: Compare it to other games and you will see that player retention for VII is better than most, and isn't far off how VI was doing at the same point in its life cycle.
3. It has lost 80% of its players. Counter: This is normal for basically every game. VI sold 2 million copies in 2 weeks and peaked at over 160,000 players and then was getting peaks lower than 20k within 6 months. It's normal.

A common counter to all of these is that there are now many more steam users than 9 years (or 15 years) ago, so the numbers should be higher.
Counter: These people also own more games than 9 or 15 years ago.

Another common counter is that the numbers have to be bad because the game is so bad.
Counter:

 

[Smegger213]

Not really? The main points which are said to say that the player count is bad are

1. It has less players than VI & V. Counter: VI had less players than V for a long time and possibly less than IV for a period. V likely had less players than IV for a period of time too.
2. Player retention is bad. Counter: Compare it to other games and you will see that player retention for VII is better than most, and isn't far off how VI was doing at the same point in its life cycle.
3. It has lost 80% of its players. Counter: This is normal for basically every game. VI sold 2 million copies in 2 weeks and peaked at over 160,000 players and then was getting peaks lower than 20k within 6 months. It's normal.

1. No, Civ 6 did not have less players than Civ 5. Check the max graphs for both games and you will find that 6 always had more players than 5, right from the off. The lowest number for Civ 6 was in 2018 with 25189 players. Lowest number for Civ 5 was right now with 19586 players. Yes, Civ 5 had a couple of big spikes in players.
But you cannot get away from the fact that more gamers want to play Civ 5 and 6, than Civ 7.

Mind you, check out Humankind's Steam player count. That is even more tragic lol.
If you want an example of a successful game that gains players, then look at Skyrim.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

A common counter to all of these is that there are now many more steam users than 9 years (or 15 years) ago, so the numbers should be higher.
Counter: These people also own more games than 9 or 15 years ago.

Another common counter is that the numbers have to be bad because the game is so bad.
Counter:

Yes! People don't realise that there are more games than ever too. Civ V was literally the number one game on Steam in 2010, in terms of peak players. There was less competition for V & VI.

 

[Kev1916]

Not really? The main points which are said to say that the player count is bad are

1. It has less players than VI & V. Counter: VI had less players than V for a long time and possibly less than IV for a period. V likely had less players than IV for a period of time too.
2. Player retention is bad. Counter: Compare it to other games and you will see that player retention for VII is better than most, and isn't far off how VI was doing at the same point in its life cycle.
3. It has lost 80% of its players. Counter: This is normal for basically every game. VI sold 2 million copies in 2 weeks and peaked at over 160,000 players and then was getting peaks lower than 20k within 6 months. It's normal.

Aye , dont think so , anyway you enjoy your night

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

1. No, Civ 6 did not have less players than Civ 5. Check the max graphs for both games and you will find that 6 always had more players than 5, right from the off. The lowest number for Civ 6 was in 2018 with 25189 players. Lowest number for Civ 5 was right now with 19586 players. Yes, Civ 5 had a couple of big spikes in players.
But you cannot get away from the fact that more gamers want to play Civ 5 and 6, than Civ 7.

Mind you, check out Humankind's Steam player count. That is even more tragic lol.
If you want an example of a successful game that gains players, then look at Skyrim.

I have checked them. From the launch of VI in October 2016 to November 2018, VI only had a higher peak player count in October 2016 (launch), November 2016 (first full month) & February 2018 (expansion).

If you want an example of a successful game that gains players, then look at Skyrim.

We don't need to look at Skyrim. We can look at Civ VI, which had less players than V for a long time but started to see permanent gains 2-3 years after its release. We can look at V (which possibly had less players than IV for a while) which also started to see permanent gains 2-3 years after its release.
It took 2 expansions and huge sales for both of V & VI to start gaining players. It will be the same for VII. Then probably the same for VIII, and IX & X.

 

[Xur]

Is misrepresenting the reality of player count, player retention, perceived competition and reviews helping civ7 or Firaxis? I fail to see the point of your posts @DefinitelyNotSidMeier

Most people around here want a good civ game. Identifying problems and giving critique is the first step on that path. If we can't even stick to facts and reality, then we aren't helping anyone.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Is misrepresenting the reality of player count, player retention, perceived competition and reviews helping civ7 or Firaxis? I fail to see the point of your posts @DefinitelyNotSidMeier

Most people around here want a good civ game. Identifying problems and giving critique is the first step on that path. If we can't even stick to facts and reality, then we aren't helping anyone.

Speculations in this thread have zero value for Firaxis, because unlike us, they have real data on sales, active players and other meaningful metrics, plus behavior patterns and a lot of other things.

This thread is mostly a confirmation bias for people who dislike the game and is not a valuable critique.

 

[Kwami]

1. No, Civ 6 did not have less players than Civ 5. Check the max graphs for both games and you will find that 6 always had more players than 5, right from the off. The lowest number for Civ 6 was in 2018 with 25189 players. Lowest number for Civ 5 was right now with 19586 players. Yes, Civ 5 had a couple of big spikes in players.

That's just not true. Except for a few spikes around the initial launch and first expansion launch, VI averaged fewer players than V for about 1.5 years.

 

[Smegger213]

I have checked them. From the launch of VI in October 2016 to November 2018, VI only had a higher peak player count in October 2016 (launch), November 2016 (first full month) & February 2018 (expansion).


We don't need to look at Skyrim. We can look at Civ VI, which had less players than V for a long time but started to see permanent gains 2-3 years after its release. We can look at V (which possibly had less players than IV for a while) which also started to see permanent gains 2-3 years after its release.
It took 2 expansions and huge sales for both of V & VI to start gaining players. It will be the same for VII. Then probably the same for VIII, and IX & X.

No it didn't. Check the graphs.
Both are Max graphs from launch to now.
Civ 6's lowest player count was in 2017 to 2018. But its still higher than Civ 5's lowest count.
Civ 6's numbers started to rise from 2019 onwards, where as Civ 5 started to fall from around 2017.

But compare those 2 to Civ 7's graph.
That graph has rapidly dropped and is getting lower every month.

Why are you trying to defend Civ 7's performance and player count?
Are you a Firaxis employer maybe?

 

[itix]

Yes! People don't realise that there are more games than ever too. Civ V was literally the number one game on Steam in 2010, in terms of peak players. There was less competition for V & VI.

I am not sure how this is helping.

 

[Smegger213]

That's just not true. Except for a few spikes around the initial launch and first expansion launch, VI averaged fewer players than V for about 1.5 years.

In 2019 there were about 30,000 players playing Civ 5. But Civ 6 was pulling in about 40,000 players in 2019 and rising.

 

[Gorbles]

A common counter to all of these is that there are now many more steam users than 9 years (or 15 years) ago, so the numbers should be higher.

I don't want to get involved with the full tangent, but this is faulty logic. Not only do new Steam users buy old games (inflating their active / concurrent over the lifetime of the game), but there's no guarantee that 4x or Civ. prospects are increasing at a linear rate.

The poster you're responding to is talking about general trends. "there are more players now so they should inflate VII more than other, older, games" is not a counter. It's a claim of its own.

And one critics of VII should be able to refute (not saying you are - but there are plenty of critics active right now ignoring this) by simply pointing out that VII is less popular in absolute terms despite following a similar post-launch trajectory to most game launch sales.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

No it didn't. Check the graphs.
Both are Max graphs from launch to now.
Civ 6's lowest player count was in 2017 to 2018. But its still higher than Civ 5's lowest count.
Civ 6's numbers started to rise from 2019 onwards, where as Civ 5 started to fall from around 2017.

But compare those 2 to Civ 7's graph.
That graph has rapidly dropped and is getting lower every month.

Why are you trying to defend Civ 7's performance and player count?
Are you a Firaxis employer maybe?

You're wrong. Click compare on SteamDB and add Civ V. It took a long time for VI to become more popular than V.

You see that VI was losing players for the first 6-8 months before stabilising? That's normal. Normal for VI, normal for VII, normal for games. People think the very normal and usual occurrence of a game losing players after launch means they're going to stop supporting VII.

Why do people such as yourself always accuse people who point out facts to be Firaxis employees?

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

Is misrepresenting the reality of player count, player retention, perceived competition and reviews helping civ7 or Firaxis? I fail to see the point of your posts @DefinitelyNotSidMeier

Most people around here want a good civ game. Identifying problems and giving critique is the first step on that path. If we can't even stick to facts and reality, then we aren't helping anyone.

It isn't misrepresentation. I haven't mentioned reviews at all. I'm talking about the player count and retention which people make false claims about which then lead them to ludicrously proclaim that they might stop supporting VII.

Identifying the reality that a game losing players 80-85% of players after launch is normal is important.

 

[Smegger213]

You're wrong. Click compare on SteamDB and add Civ V. It took a long time for VI to become more popular than V.

You see that VI was losing players for the first 6-8 months before stabilising? That's normal. Normal for VI, normal for VII, normal for games. People think the very normal and usual occurrence of a game losing players after launch means they're going to stop supporting VII.

Why do people such as yourself always accuse people who point out facts to be Firaxis employees?

Look pal. We can argue all day if you like.
But look at my compare chart below. Its totally different to yours.

My chart show Civ 6 rising above Civ 5 from about the latter half of 2018 onward
On your chart, you are only looking at a block of about 2 years.
I am looking at the max time for both games.

 

[Crashdummy]

Isn't there quite a massive gap between "rosy" and "terrible", though?

Yes, and Civ 7 numbers are terrible

If anyone thinks a AAA game with ongoing production can survive with 7k average concurrent players on its main platform you are delusional

Beyond Earth stabilized at 3.5k, not that far away

 

[Kwami]

Look pal. We can argue all day if you like.
But look at my compare chart below. Its totally different to yours.
Why are they different? Well, its because I am pretty sure the Steam player charts are region specific. I am in the UK, so my charts are different.
My chart show Civ 6 rising above Civ 5 from about the latter half of 2018 onwards.

Oh and on your chart, you are only looking at a block of about 2 years.
I am looking at the max time for both games.

The latter half of 2018 was two years after release. Civ VI was released in October, 2016.

 

[Wrenched]

If 7 came out and the concurrent player numbers were something like double 6's I imagine the internet would be trumpeting it from every corner.

If Civ 7 is able to right the ship and gain a lot of ground I am willing to bet the player count numbers will suddenly be seen as useful again.

 

[Siddorm]

I am thinking that we should not assume that the Civ 7 player count will follow the same trajectory that Civ 6 or Civ 5 had. We should expect Civ 7 to trace out its own trajectory.

 

[Leucarum]

Eh. A lot of hyperbole on all sides here.

All games find a floor... But Civ 7 has found a floor which is lower than Civ6's on absolute terms, and about twice as bad on relative terms. Unless the way players consume both games is dramatically different we can say that Civ7 is doing a lot worse than Civ6. And that's not good news.

At the same time that doesn't mean the game is about to die. It has found it's floor, so hopefully that floor is enough that it can go back up. It honestly could be the case that the floor is high enough that Firaxis can support it for a full lifecycle - to give the worst example possible, Everquest is still alive... Though I doubt Firaxis would be happy with that.

Speculatively, I would argue that since incremental changes in recent patches and the DLC have only marginally shifted player counts, that something drastic is probably needed. And the recent changes are undermining ages by promoting snowballing... So... I think there's hope if Firaxis follow the inevitable?