Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[aieeegrunt]

Except so far, they're only selling civilizations and leaders, exactly as they did for V and VI. Were those shakedowns, too?

Yes, you can buy silly aesthetic things like custom fog of war, but those things don't change the game at all, so who cares?

To get the same gameplay value from Civ7 you need to buy three times as many Civs.

I can’t just buy Hungary, I have to buy the Illyrians, Maygyars and Hungary.

 

[Crashdummy]

The same could be said of Skyrim and Elden Ring as well, and both have much larger player counts despite being years older.

If they have no active players now, how will they sell DLC?

Both of those games are kept alive with mods IMHO

 

[Kev1916]

To get the same gameplay value from Civ7 you need to buy three times as many Civs.

I can’t just buy Hungary, I have to buy the Illyrians, Maygyars and Hungary.

Most non biased people are aware of that .

$ 18 dollars to play "Hungary" lol

Currently this version of "civ" has about 18 Dlc 's ! with the flagship Crossroads of the World Collection sitting at 90% Negative review

One review

"
CIV 6 RISE AND FALL
$32.99 CAD - emergencies,9 new leaders 8 new civs, 8 new wonders , enhanced alliances, governors, new global content, improved systems, loyalty, great ages

CIV 7 CROSSROADS OF THE WORLD
$39.99 CAD - 2 leaders, 2 civs that you can only play in one of the ages so 1/3 the game, 4 wonders

Its absolutely crystal clear why they went with the leader separation and civilization switching, for nothing other than monetization. With fragmentation they can sell you everything in bite sized chunks...
"

 

[tman2000]

Sure, "near universal". Except that Steam reviews are pretty much 50/50 (49/51 when I checked just now) and critical reviews average 8/10. So, no, your opinion is not "near universal". It's not even remotely close. And there's nothing "objective" about it, either.

The player counts on Steam are pretty objective.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

Sorry, it's possible that you're biased and not thinking quantitatively.

You have a large population of people who are not very active on reddit, but don't like the game. Some percentage of the population occasionally comes in and leaves a negative post.

Then you have a small population of hyperactive users who vigilantly watch for new posts and downvote them if they're negative so they have less visibility.

This is sounding like the argument against "millions of console players" asking where they are.

You're blaming a "small population of hyperactive users" for downvoting and overwhelming the millions of haters posts. Which doesn't even make sense because negative posts and comments are upvoted all the time on there? You should have a look.

 

[itix]

Do you really think there's a big overlap between the GTA6 community and the Civ community? Really? I'm sure that Firaxis doesn't care one bit about GTA6 releasing in the spring.

I think there is but I think the real issue is that the Internet is going to be flooded with GTA reviews and commentary.

If I had to guess, there is a Civ7 expansion a few months before GTA.

 

[queenpea]

To get the same gameplay value from Civ7 you need to buy three times as many Civs.

I can’t just buy Hungary, I have to buy the Illyrians, Maygyars and Hungary.

Decoupling the leaders from civs has also created a new DLC unit.

 

[Smegger213]

Sure, "near universal". Except that Steam reviews are pretty much 50/50 (49/51 when I checked just now) and critical reviews average 8/10. So, no, your opinion is not "near universal". It's not even remotely close. And there's nothing "objective" about it, either.

There are over 2500 more negative reviews than positive ones. As at 30.08.25. Its been like that for a good couple of weeks now.
12th of August was pretty bad. 13 positive, but 48 negative reviews lol. In fact, since 12th August there have only been a couple of days where there were more positive reviews than negative ones. But the difference on those days was very small.

I particularly like this review "Absolutely awful. They've destroyed the franchise with this game". That just about sums it up lol.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

Decoupling the leaders from civs has also created a new DLC unit.

No it didn't. Do you not remember the Leaders pass in Civ VI? Leaders were already being sold on their own.

 

[queenpea]

No it didn't. Do you not remember the Leaders pass in Civ VI? Leaders were already being sold on their own.

It did. The Leader pass arrived at the very end of the VI development cycle and was free for many players. It’s not a good example.

In VII, by contrast, you get Mongolia in the base but have to purchase Genghis. Whether or not you object to the model, it does provide another opportunity to sell DLC.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

Most non biased people are aware of that .

$ 18 dollars to play "Hungary" lol

Currently this version of "civ" has about 18 Dlc 's ! with the flagship Crossroads of the World Collection sitting at 90% Negative review

One review

"
CIV 6 RISE AND FALL
$32.99 CAD - emergencies,9 new leaders 8 new civs, 8 new wonders , enhanced alliances, governors, new global content, improved systems, loyalty, great ages

CIV 7 CROSSROADS OF THE WORLD
$39.99 CAD - 2 leaders, 2 civs that you can only play in one of the ages so 1/3 the game, 4 wonders

Its absolutely crystal clear why they went with the leader separation and civilization switching, for nothing other than monetization. With fragmentation they can sell you everything in bite sized chunks...
"

Why are you comparing a full expansion to DLC which isn't a full expansion?

Civ VI New Frontiers Pass
$40 - 8 Civs, 9 Leaders

Civ VII Crossroads of the World
$30 - 4 Civs, 2 Leaders, 4 Natural Wonders

Do you guys really think they needed to "decouple" Civilizations & Leaders and create new mechanics like Ages & Civ-switching to charge more for less content?

You don't think they could've just charged $30 for 4 Civs with a leader attached to each one if they wanted to? They could have. Blaming the game for bad DLC pricing is ridiculous.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Blaming the game for bad DLC pricing is ridiculous.

Not if a DLC sales strategy drove the (poor) design of the game.

To be clear, I myself am not saying this is what happened (though some here are). And what those who are saying that are saying is that, seeing that DLCs were money-making, they designed the game in the first instance to make DLC sales possible, but also with the idea of bamboozling fans about the game-enhancing value of the DLCs.

IF that is true, then they would seem to have made a miscalculation about how savvy their customers are about assessing enhancement of game value relative to price of DLC. Eight new civs and 9 new leaders enhance the replayablity of 6 more than 4 civlets and 2 leaders will enhance the replayability of 7.

And yes, I am too going to make "civlets" happen. Stop telling me to stop trying. It's a good way of capturing how "a new civ" for 7 is a different thing from "a new civ" for 6.*

*and that is even if as much work goes into a 7 civlet as went into a 6 civ. Maybe so, but the civlet only enhances the game for a third of a game, so players feel that difference where it matters to them.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

It did. The Leader pass arrived at the very end of the VII development cycle and was free for many players.

In VII, for example, you get Mongolia in the base but have to purchase Genghis. Whether or not you object to the model, it does provide another opportunity to sell DLC.

Free if you bought all the other DLC, $20 if you didn't. Civ VI Leaders Pass is the first instance of Leaders being sold separately to Civs.

 

[GeneralZift]

50/50 is not really a good rating to be honest. 50% are bad OF the people who could be convinced to buy it.
People who don't buy it at all are not convinced by the state of the game enough to buy it, or other circumstances like they don't know about the game.

Generally speaking, 90% is considered very good, like industry classics such as Hollow Knight or GTA or something along those lines.
75% is where the game is good and probably worth your time, most people like it.
50% the game is flawed and it reaches the 'Mixed' on Steam.

Once it goes below 50% it reaches a very bad zone because at that point people widely consider it undesirable to even download.

Just be aware that we are basically on the teetering edge for Civ7, so the developers should be careful.
I think the game is held up by the art which is great, and some decent new mechanics like Navigable Rivers, Commanders.
But the state of the UI, Civ switching / Age mechanics, the monetisation, among probable other concerns like the game being boring, among the reasons why it's scoring quite low, especially for AA title.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

Not if a DLC sales strategy drove the (poor) design of the game.

To be clear, I myself am not saying this is what happened (though some here are). And what those who are saying that are saying is that, seeing that DLCs were money-making, they designed the game in the first instance to make DLC sales possible.

IF that is true, then they would seem to have made a miscalculation about how savvy their customers are about assessing enhancement of game value relative to price of DLC. Eight new civs and 9 new leaders enhance the replayablity of 6 more than 4 civlets and 2 leaders will enhance the replayability of 7.

Poor design of the game to you. If Civ VII was like Civ VI with no Ages or Civ switching, there would be no stopping them from releasing similar bad DLC pricing. The game design has not encouraged bad DLC pricing.

 

[queenpea]

Free if you bought all the other DLC, $20 if you didn't. Civ VI Leaders Pass is the first instance of Leaders being sold separately to Civs.

And perhaps it was a test to see how this DLC model would perform for VII?

Clearly decoupling leaders from civs is foundational to VII and it does provide a new opportunity for DLC from the start.

 

[Gori the Grey]

there would be no stopping them from releasing similar bad DLC pricing

There would be something stopping them. They couldn't call 1/3 of a civ a civ!*

Also, they couldn't extract money in the same way from a person who wants to play, through the whole game, a particular this-world civilization: by putting three chunks of it in three separate DLCs (or one in base in the two others in separate DLCs).

What they are likely to find, probably are presently finding, is that this is a dud of a pricing strategy because potential customers 1) see through it and 2) resent it.

Building resentment in your customer base is not a good way to make sales.

(Again that is IF the tail wagged the dog, which I'm not sure I believe. I think the game was mostly developed in good faith; I believe the designers convinced themselves that ages and civ switching would make for a fun game.** But, for all that, I'm sure there was also a meeting b/w the uppity-ups at Firaxis and the uppity-ups at 2K where someone said "and this will also lend itself to packaging civlets*** as DLC content")

*it's "shrinkflation." I buy K-pods for the office coffee-maker, but it's only about once a month that I need an extra cup of coffee, so it's been a year since I bought a multipack. When I brought the new multi-pack out to the office, I noticed it was ten pods as opposed to the earlier 12 pods. They now make an entity that plays for 1/3 of the game, but still call it a "Civ." If my K-pods had dropped from 12 to 4, I would have been way more disappointed/skeptical/angry.

**I think they thought that trying out different leader+civ combos (trying to find which combination of all those perks was most OP) would be engaging to players.

***except they didn't say "civlets" (because I hadn't made it happen yet).

 

[Leucarum]

I really doubt civ switching or decoupling leaders from civs was predominantly a sales decision.

But it absolutely can have a negative impact on percieved value. I doubt most players are excited by all the civs in a DLC, so telling you that the ones you do enjoy will only be playable for 1/3 of the game can makr the DLC look like remarkably bad value compared to previous DLC for Civ6...

I won't be buying civ packs at this point for that reason.

 

[queenpea]

I really doubt civ switching or decoupling leaders from civs was predominantly a sales decision.

But it absolutely can have a negative impact on percieved value. I doubt most players are excited by all the civs in a DLC, so telling you that the ones you do enjoy will only be playable for 1/3 of the game can makr the DLC look like remarkably bad value compared to previous DLC for Civ6...

I won't be buying civ packs at this point for that reason.

I’m not particularly conspiratorially minded about the decision either. I am not sure if it was purposeful or not, and I’m not against the concept of DLC.

I do think it’s silly to argue against the fact that there will be more to buy this round as civilizations are cut into thirds and separated from leaders.

There are just more units of (optional) DLC available.

 

[Krikkit1]

There would be something stopping them. They couldn't call 1/3 of a civ a civ!*

Also, they couldn't extract money in the same way from a person who wants to play, through the whole game, a particular this-world civilization: by putting three chunks of it in three separate DLCs.

What they are likely to find, probably are presently finding, is that this is a dud of a pricing strategy because potential customers 1) see through it and 2) resent it.

Building resentment in your customer base is not a good way to make sales.

(Again that is IF the tail wagged the dog, which I'm not sure I believe. I think the game was mostly developed in good faith; I believe the designers convinced themselves that ages and civ switching would make for a fun game.** But, for all that, I'm sure there was also a meeting b/w the uppity-ups at Firaxis and the uppity-ups at 2K where someone said "and this will also lend itself to packaging civlets*** as DLC content")

*it's "shrinkflation." I buy K-pods for the office coffee-maker, but it's only about once a month that I need an extra cup of coffee, so it's been a year since I bought a multipack. When I brought the new multi-pack out to the office, I noticed it was ten pods as opposed to the earlier 12 pods. They now make an entity that plays for 1/3 of the game, but still call it a "Civ." If my K-pods had dropped from 12 to 4, I would have been way more disappointed/skeptical/angry.

**I think they thought that trying out different leader+civ combos (trying to find which combination of all those perks was most OP) would be engaging to players.

***except they didn't say "civlets" (because I hadn't made it happen yet).

They could do it with less work since a civ 6 civ is less unique than a civ 7 civ.