Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[IntelligentDisk]

Maybe we surmise that 7 didn't come out of the gates as hot as 6, had an attrition rate that was only slightly worse than Civ6, but that's still enough to leave it lagging 5 and 6 since it had a lower high point?

It had a lower high point because:

1. It's launch was split into two days. It's likely if the launch wasn't split between 2 days, then the all time peak would've been over 100k.
2. It was released on other platforms at the same time unlike V or VI, inevitably this will take players away from Steam.
3. It is less affordable than V or VI, but, it still had record pre-orders which clearly isn't shown in the Steam player count, which leads me to believe other platform pre-orders were fairly sizeable.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

All those reasons could be valid, but it could also just be that steam was very different and we aren't capturing something comparable in the first instance...

It was different in the way there was no review system like there is today. A game that has a rating of 47% like VII does will suffer from reduced sales due to a undesirable reception.

 

[Leucarum]

It had a lower high point because:

1. It's launch was split into two days. It's likely if the launch wasn't split between 2 days, then the all time peak would've been over 100k.
2. It was released on other platforms at the same time unlike V or VI, inevitably this will take players away from Steam.
3. It is less affordable than V or VI, but, it still had record pre-orders which clearly isn't shown in the Steam player count, which leads me to believe other platform pre-orders were fairly sizeable.

For what it's worth the early access player counts are on steamdb and rhey were very low so I'm not sure how much they would have changed the numbers.

That said if the peak was really higher that would be worse for Civ7 and not better as we do know where it's ended up.

 

[itix]

It’s interesting to note that Civ6 only definitively surpassed Civ5 in 2019, the same year Gathering Storm was released. Not even Rise and Fall was enough to keep the game consistently above Civ5.

Civ 5 is very strong. When aligned to the release date, it took six years until Civ 6 surpassed Civ 5. In 2030, it could still have ~10000 concurrent players.

Now looking back, there is a pattern: Civ 1-3 were classic civs, "classic trilogy". Civ 4-6 are modern entries, "franchise expansion trilogy" where expansion is not referring to the game but expanding the franchise to casual players and modern gaming culture. Baba Yetu, hexagons and cartoon graphics. Civ 7 is again a breakaway.

 

[Siddorm]

We have identified some of the limitations of comparing numbers for a game released in 2025 versus games released in 2016 or 2010. Perhaps we could compare Civ 7's numbers with some other games from 2025. Would anyone like to suggest any such comparisons? For example, in 2026, we may be able to compare some numbers for Civ 7 versus EU5.

 

[stealth_nsk]

We have identified some of the limitations of comparing numbers for a game released in 2025 versus games released in 2016 or 2010. Perhaps we could compare Civ 7's numbers with some other games from 2025. Would anyone like to suggest any such comparisons? For example, in 2026, we may be able to compare some numbers for Civ 7 versus EU5.

Civilization is a pretty unique game, it's primarily SP, but with enormous staying power. The only other comparable title in that area, I believe is Skyrim, but it differs in too many others.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

For what it's worth the early access player counts are on steamdb and rhey were very low so I'm not sure how much they would have changed the numbers.

That said if the peak was really higher that would be worse for Civ7 and not better as we do know where it's ended up.

The peak for Civ VII during early access was 62,931 which is certainly not very low. 22,000 away from the eventual peak.

 

[Leucarum]

The peak for Civ VII during early access was 62,931 which is certainly not very low. 22,000 away from the eventual peak.

Sure, feel free to interpret the numbers I gave as the most optimistic interpretation as a higher player number means a far worse retention rate.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Sure, feel free to interpret the numbers I gave as the most optimistic interpretation as a higher player number means a far worse retention rate.

Not necessarily, I use the average weekly peak concurrent player counts to assess player retention and while the initial peak would've been higher on launch day, the decline after would've been steeper which would result in a final figure not too different to the actual first week which had 2 launches and instead of decreasing, it increased.

The 36th week for each of Civ VI & VII shows an 83% decrease for VI from week 1 to 36, while VII shows an 85.7% decrease from week 1 to 36. The week before was the first week where retention looks better for VII having an 84.3% decrease while VI had a 85.6% decrease.

However, when you look at it monthly (counting a month as 28 days/4 weeks, starting from the launch date of each title), then you'll see Civ VI had a 76.2% decrease from month 1 to month 9, while Civ VII had a 83.4% decrease from month 1 to month 9. In comparison, Beyond Earth had a 90.5% decrease from month 1 to 9. So it appears VIIs player retention is right between VI & Beyond Earth.

It's of course worth pointing out once again that VII has had less sales than VI & Beyond Earth, as well as having the lowest biggest discount during the first 9 months. VIIs highest discount has been 30% (sold at $49), VIs was 40% (sold at $36), Beyond Earths was 50% (sold at $25).

 

[Kev1916]

Just look at Civ VI taking over 2 years to gain more players than Civ V, almost 3 years to clearly pass it.

ancient predecessors, plural
I seriously can’t think of any recent game supposedly AAA that has less than 1/2 of the player count and 1/2 of the review score of the next to next incarnation

 

[IntelligentDisk]

ancient predecessors, plural
I seriously can’t think of any recent game supposedly AAA that has less than 1/2 of the player count and 1/2 of the review score of the next to next incarnation

We don't know how many players Civ IV had in 2016/17, so it's plausible that it had more players than VI too.

 

[Core Imposter]

In trying to find a relevant comment it occurred to once again point out that the ages system is an unforced unrecoverable error. If you build artificial breaks in a game people will stop playing. Let's all move on.

 

[tman2000]

But sometimes there's only 2 Deep Ocean tiles to pass through...

The Canary Islands and Azores were discovered well before the West Indies. The Polynesians found New Zealand and Hawaii but not California.

 

[tman2000]

I think that we're gone over this enough times already. Fifteen years, numerous very good sales, a stable multi-player scene, and a whole bunch of mods will get you a lot of players. Civ VII has only had about 10 months and a couple of very minor sales. Give it some time!

Time is not the relevant variable here and if you want things to change you have to accept that. In my opinion.

 

[Kwami]

Time is not the relevant variable here and if you want things to change you have to accept that. In my opinion.

Based on what, though? Time is very clearly relevant.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Sure, feel free to interpret the numbers I gave as the most optimistic interpretation as a higher player number means a far worse retention rate.

It's still more about post-launch sales, than actual retention, though

 

[youngsteve]

Lets look at this a different way. If Civ 7 had been released without any title or any details of who the developers were or what the game entailed, & you played the game. How many players would realise this was a Civilization & not a Humankind clone. I expect most would realise what Civilization 1-6 are though.

The truth of the matter is that although many people like Civ 7 the vast majority of Civ fans dislike it, & don't want anything to do with the game, as it is not real Civilization game, & that is the problem, which I cannot see them resolving. People can do as much mental gymnastics as they want & developers releasing patches, but it will not change peoples opinions & increase the player count & review scores up to a suitable level for an A list game like this. This game needs fundamental changes to its structure to do this, & I cannot see this happening.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Lets look at this a different way. If Civ 7 had been released without any title or any details of who the developers were or what the game entailed, & you played the game. How many players would realise this was a Civilization & not a Humankind clone. I expect most would realise what Civilization 1-6 are though.

I think more people would recognize civilization in Civ7 after Civ6 than in Civ5 after Civ4. And I don't think any significant number of players would think it's HK clone.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

So what? You are trying to infer that the game is recovering as far as reviews go.
When the simple fact is that its not changed at all in months.
The player count hasn't really changed much either. Yes there have been a couple of rises after the last patch, but the 30 day figure is still low.

Reviews for month 9 were the second best reviewed month after the first. A 3%-6% improvement from the previous 3 months plus the 4th best reviewed week and the best reviewed day yet. It shows they're doing something right.

The player count peaked at it's highest in 150 days just a few weeks ago, as well as having it's highest weekly average peak concurrent players in 21 weeks.

You said something about September, you're right September was bad, but it's October now. So far the average for October is 7,426, which is higher than the previous 4 months.

The truth of the matter is that although many people like Civ 7 the vast majority of Civ fans dislike it, & don't want anything to do with the game, as it is not real Civilization game, & that is the problem, which I cannot see them resolving. People can do as much mental gymnastics as they want & developers releasing patches, but it will not change peoples opinions & increase the player count & review scores up to a suitable level for an A list game like this. This game needs fundamental changes to its structure to do this, & I cannot see this happening.

47% positive/53% negative does not show that the vast majority dislike it, record pre-orders does not show the vast majority does not want anything to do with the game.

 

[youngsteve]

47% positive/53% negative does not show that the vast majority dislike it, record pre-orders does not show the vast majority does not want anything to do with the game.

You are confusing matters again, like many people do on here, deflecting from what is really happenning. I am not talking about player reviews, which you are right are still negative, but the fact that many Civilization fans never bought the game or if did hardly played it, & don't want anything to do with it. Firaxis/Take 2 have spoken in the past about widening the appeal of the game & gaining a new audience on top of their exisiting player base, which nearly all developers do at one time or other. There is no doubt they have been succesful inpart, with a big part of the audience people who haven't played the franchise before. The consequence of the changes though have pushed most of the exisitng playerbase away from the game, though not the franchise it seems. So despite the new audience the overall playerbase has fallen considerably because of this.