Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Maiq]

at least on non-PC platforms

You mean the platforms Civ 7 was trying to chase? Even a fan made game does better lol.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You mean the platforms Civ 7 was trying to chase? Even a fan made game does better lol.

No, I mean mobile phone and web based games, where official civ games don't work. Except for CivRev, which was on Android, but even it is now unloaded.

 

[Maiq]

No, I mean mobile phone and web based games, where official civ games don't work. Except for CivRev, which was on Android, but even it is now unloaded.

Civ 6 is 100% available on mobile

 

[itix]

I used to work with Freeciv 1/2 (porting to... uhm... @KayAU could quess it) and it was a decent Civ II clone. I would say better than Civ II. IIRC AI was not good but it thrived in MP.

Looking by Freeciv 3 screenshots it has not moved away from Civ 2 but i cant afford to play 6+ MP sessions anymore.

 

[fantsu]

Even Switch version of VII is running on mobile chip, right?

 

[aieeegrunt]

The “but we MUST innovate or else” keeps getting brought up as a defence of Civ7.

Civs 3 through 6 managed to incorporate a lot of interesting major changes and innovations to gameplay without failing like 7 did, because the core identity of the game wasn’t replaced

 

[stealth_nsk]

The “but we MUST innovate or else” keeps getting brought up as a defence of Civ7.

Civs 3 through 6 managed to incorporate a lot of interesting major changes and innovations to gameplay without failing like 7 did, because the core identity of the game wasn’t replaced

There's a big disagreement of what this "core identity" is. I'd say it's a matter of subjective perception (for example, for some people on this forum, Civ5 replaced the core identity of the game).

 

[Gorbles]

The “but we MUST innovate or else” keeps getting brought up as a defence of Civ7.

Civs 3 through 6 managed to incorporate a lot of interesting major changes and innovations to gameplay without failing like 7 did, because the core identity of the game wasn’t replaced

Again, this is a reductive "because the game is unpopular" justification. What if the game succeeded, and your opinion was in the minority? Like the players who prefer IV and don't agree with the popular heights V and VI took the franchise to?

This is a complete hypothetical, but entertain it for a moment. Would your dislike of the gameplay systems be invalid? I don't think so. Would you still think the core identity of the franchise had been replaced? I think you would.

Franchises have a very simple path ahead of them, each time it's time for a new entry. Innovate, or do not. Both come with risks. So no, Civilisation doesn't have to innovate. But it's longevity as a franchise is tied directly to it innovating.

 

[j51]

Yeah I think the one third new should have been specific narrative events for civs, allowing the player to mix and match leaders and civs allowing for a few leaderless civs, and have an option where a player can switch civs if they want to but only if they’re doing poorly, or they want to spend a massive amount of gold and have some anarchy turns.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Ok, I made the analysis of reviews in the last 45 days, it's not perfect, but I have free account on ChatGPT and analytics is limited.

Civilization switching as immersion breaker was mentioned by ≈15 people out of 1940, but overall issues with age transition are still high (≈220).

Also, ChatGPT specifically mentions that new players in general perceive the game better than old ones, based on review text.

That's the answer I got, when I asked Chat GPT this question: "How many of the Civ 7 Reviews on Steam mention Civ Switching (or a similar expression) as a problem?"

Summary: In Absence of Exact Numbers​

• There is no specific count or percentage of Steam reviews that mention civ switching.
• However, multiple sources—from news summaries, community forums, and editorial coverage—indicate that it’s a frequent and prominent complaint.
• Reviews and discussions frequently include it among the top criticisms, especially alongside UI issues and an unfinished launch state.

---

While I can’t tell you exactly how many reviews mention it, I can confidently say that "Civ switching" is one of the most commonly cited problems in player reviews, often ranking alongside or even above other complaints like UI, missing features, or bugs.


If you'd like, I could help you search through Steam reviews directly via keywords, or guide you on how to filter them yourself—just let me know!

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Logically what the evidence we have shows is that those reviewers who mentioned things like lack of big maps also would have other problems with the game that they didn't mention. Otherwise we would see reviews ticking up right now.

Every person is different, but there's no reason why all the people who care about map sizes would've bought on launch, and suddenly noone who cares about them is buying anymore. Unless there's a reason why the type of reviewer that buys now versus on launch differs on average, then individual difference at the people level are irrelevant., because everyone who bought at launch were different people, different reviewers too.

You aren't confronting the reality of the data. There may be a way of explaining it, but you aren't doing that.

You can't just say all of those initial reviewers who had specific complaints which have since been "solved" or at least improved wouldn't change their mind because they would also have other complaints. I'm sure a big chunk of them would still give the game a negative review if the game released today, I'm also sure a big chunk of them would change their review from not recommended to recommended. I think it's fair to say late purchasers would be less kind in their reviews given the overall negative perception to the game which will be at the forefront of their minds influencing them before they've even purchased the game. At this point, everyone purchasing the game is very aware of all the complaints. This can be seen in other games which also had very publicised initial complaints.

Cyperpunk 2077: Weeks 1 - 10: 77.4% rating Weeks 11 - 20: 54.3% rating Weeks 21 - 30: 57.1% rating
Civilization VI: Weeks 1 - 10: 81.5% rating Weeks 11 - 20: 48.3% rating Weeks 21 - 30: 49.3% rating
Civilization VII: Weeks 1 - 10: 49.5% rating Weeks 11 - 20: 32.5% rating Weeks 21 - 30: 38.6% rating

Ok, I made the analysis of reviews in the last 45 days, it's not perfect, but I have free account on ChatGPT and analytics is limited.

Civilization switching as immersion breaker was mentioned by ≈15 people out of 1940, but overall issues with age transition are still high (≈220).

Also, ChatGPT specifically mentions that new players in general perceive the game better than old ones, based on review text.

So 19% of negative reviews mention the Ages system and just 8% mention leaders not being glued to one Civilisation. Only 1% of the negative reviews specifically mentioning Civ-switching is shocking.

They could change their reviews though? I got negative reviews that mention things that got fixed in other games, but my overall review/opinion has not changed. You can look at "recent reviews" if you have trouble understanding steam reviews. Recent reviews have all those fixes you mention. Recent reviews are trending down though.

If you filter for the last 30 days, then you get a lot of negative reviews with playtime of over 100 hours. People talk about the love of the franchise and the huge disappointment that is civ7. Firaxis is polishing a turd right now. They removed some of the nuts and polished it, but it's still a turd.

What percentage of people bother to change their reviews? Lots of games will have negative reviews with playtime over 100 hours? Not sure what that is meant to prove. 28% of negative reviews for Civ VI have a playtime of over 100 hours.

 

[socratic]

The “but we MUST innovate or else” keeps getting brought up as a defence of Civ7.

Civs 3 through 6 managed to incorporate a lot of interesting major changes and innovations to gameplay without failing like 7 did, because the core identity of the game wasn’t replaced

I hope “Never innovate or try anything new” is not the lesson that’s learned at FRXS. Risks are what got us the popular games in the franchise. Do I think Civ-Switching could have been implemented better? Do I think Eras brought more problems than they fixed? Yes. But taking design risks is exactly that, a risk, it’s not always going to land.

 

[Skojardu]

re: remake of a classic game as a second line. Ubisoft tried this for the settlers, which is also a long running series that saw considerable change over the decades (even much more so than civ imho). Settlers 2 is widely regarded as the timeless classic, while Settlers 4 is seen as the series' peak by many. In parallel to games that moved the series forward (for better or worse), Ubisoft launched Settler's 2 Next Generation to give something to fans of the classic games. It was a success iirc, but also criticized (the campaign was not exactly the same, it had some QoL improvements, but not many, Vikings required a DLC, etc.). Yet, its successor (a classic settlers with Scots, Bavarians, and Egyptians) was not even published in English, so apparently the market outside of Germany was saturated with the remake and originals, or the remake didn't really sell on the international market.

I'm sure that a civ IV remake with graphical and QoL improvements would sell reasonably well. But I'm not sure whether it would actually hold as many players as 5 and 6, and even 7 for a long time. Some hardcore fans will stick with the original for various reasons, others will complain that the modernization isn't sufficient, and players that started with newer version might miss some mechanics. Hence, whether it would make sense to invest in a "classic civ" with a modern DLC model to ensure a long-term development (as is done for AoE) is unclear.

One tragic thing left behind by a remaster of Civ 4 would be all of its mods that may be the secret to its success (including Fall from Heaven, Rhye's and Fall, Dune World, etc) that would be incompatible with the new game. If they do a Civ 4 remaster, they would strengthen it by attempting to create some way to upgrade these old mods into the new Civ 4 paradigm.

 

[itix]

If Civ game is good only by modding they should just close the studio.

 

[Lebo44]

One tragic thing left behind by a remaster of Civ 4 would be all of its mods that may be the secret to its success (including Fall from Heaven, Rhye's and Fall, Dune World, etc) that would be incompatible with the new game. If they do a Civ 4 remaster, they would strengthen it by attempting to create some way to upgrade these old mods into the new Civ 4 paradigm.

Civ 4 Remaster should have the upgraded versions of these scenarios available as a game modes by default.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yeah I think the one third new should have been specific narrative events for civs, allowing the player to mix and match leaders and civs allowing for a few leaderless civs, and have an option where a player can switch civs if they want to but only if they’re doing poorly, or they want to spend a massive amount of gold and have some anarchy turns.

If civ switching was allowed, it should be allowed regardless of how well you are doing. Maybe it would have a cost... but then you would just as likely civ switch when doing well and want to optimize.

 

[aelf]

Its not vague, the formula has always been a sandbox experience where you can build your Civilization to stand the Test of Time, and it comes from way before Civ VI

Every Civ game had criticism and there is always claims that the previous were better, but NONE had this level of rejection, and we have had Civ games even less polished than Civ VII before, so i dont understand how people can blame polish on this. The reality is this is the first time the gameplay that made the franchise famous and successful was changed, significantly, and most players didnt like it. I personally always had things that i liked and things that i didnt, like we all had, and i think it happens with every game, but to get this level of rejection you need a lot more than just a lack of polish

I feel players that like age transitions/civ switching are trying to blame the failure on anything except those mechanics, but that is trying to hide the forest behind the tree

The “but we MUST innovate or else” keeps getting brought up as a defence of Civ7.

Civs 3 through 6 managed to incorporate a lot of interesting major changes and innovations to gameplay without failing like 7 did, because the core identity of the game wasn’t replaced

If the Civ formula or identity is so clear-cut prior to 7, then why are people saying in this thread that the franchise had been moving away from its core identity after Civ4?

I disagree with them that Civ7 is somehow less of a Civ game, but at least they are conscious of the fact that Civ7's development is not something that came out of the blue, but is part of an ongoing evolution of the franchise.

And I, too, think that the 'formula' was at its most fun in Civ4, but just because the franchise has evolved, doesn't mean the franchise has lost its identity or whatever. Things evolve. Identities shift without losing themselves all the time. This is true of a great many things in real life so it's clearly not something without precedent. Whether you and others like the changes or not is beside the point.

 

[Skojardu]

If Civ game is good only by modding they should just close the studio.

Civ IV is not good because of its mods, however it is more relevant 20 years later because of its positive outlook towards modding, and modders. Among other strengths, Civ IV's AI is so competent people are still doing AI vs AI championship cups to this day.

 

[itix]

I am reading Reddit posts from a year ago and it seems that the community didnt fully understand what Firaxis was going to deliver. There seems to be confusion about how civ switching would work. In one instance, Ed Beach gave an interview to a Japanese magazine:

Japan had been depicted as a single civilization [...] what if there is an Ancient Japanese civilization, a Medieval Japanese civilization, and a Modern Japanese civilization?

This was taken as Japan could be played throughout the game, and it would be similar to other nations, too. It also seems that the age concept was not understood at all. It is barely getting mentioned in comments. The overall attitude is a bit cautious but positive.

It finally falls apart in February when fans see that their imagined civ switching was not in the game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That's the answer I got, when I asked Chat GPT this question: "How many of the Civ 7 Reviews on Steam mention Civ Switching (or a similar expression) as a problem?"

Yeah, because it's not how this data should be analyzed. I downloaded those reviews first, using Python code in a format, which is easy to read by computer (JSON in particular, but CSV would also work). When I uploaded this file to ChatGPT and used deep research function, which writes Python code under the hood to read the file, analyze each line and count them.