Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Siptah]

What about the issue with the fact that you can get a totally different graph, by starting the counted week on a different day?

"Totally different" is quite vague.

In any case, you need a good reason for selecting your start date if you don't want to start at release (which the graph in question does). You could do calendar weeks, but you'd start with one that contains less days than the following ones. Not important in the long run, but less elegant imho than simply counting weeks and starting as soon as you have a full two-weeks period (as the graph shows two week averages).

So, the question is why start with something else than release?

 

[stealth_nsk]

What about the issue with the fact that you can get a totally different graph, by starting the counted week on a different day?

It's simple - the data is junk in the first place. I mean you could make qualitative conclusion that Civ7 has not the best reception so far. But any attempts to get quantitative results, like trends, fail because we have so limited data.

BTW, a piece of information to mull over - we usually look at reviews for the base game, but there are separate reviews on, for example, DLC content. They are really few and thus have even less value, but since this thread is about speculation it could be interesting to speculate about them and their difference with the base game reviews.

 

[Leucarum]

Maybe someone with more tiime on their hands than me might want to try a rolling average rather than arguing over where exactly to start and end? If daily data is available somewhere

 

[Siptah]

BTW, a piece of information to mull over - we usually look at reviews for the base game, but there are separate reviews on, for example, DLC content. They are really few and thus have even less value, but since this thread is about speculation it could be interesting to speculate about them and their difference with the base game reviews.

DLCs for civ games tend to have horrible reviews. As do many other DLCs of smaller scale. It's generally a mix between bad pricing, not enough content, being part of an expansion pack, and the fact that there is even DLC to begin with.

 

[Smegger213]

U

"Totally different" is quite vague.

In any case, you need a good reason for selecting your start date if you don't want to start at release (which the graph in question does). You could do calendar weeks, but you'd start with one that contains less days than the following ones. Not important in the long run, but less elegant imho than simply counting weeks and starting as soon as you have a full two-weeks period (as the graph shows two week averages).

So, the question is why start with something else than release

"Totally different" is quite vague.

In any case, you need a good reason for selecting your start date if you don't want to start at release (which the graph in question does). You could do calendar weeks, but you'd start with one that contains less days than the following ones. Not important in the long run, but less elegant imho than simply counting weeks and starting as soon as you have a full two-weeks period (as the graph shows two week averages).

So, the question is why start with something else than release?

Game was released on 10th Feb. Which was a Monday. That is why it makes sense to count weeks starting on a Monday. If you want to coubt each week. Personally I prefer to just add up the figures each month.

 

[Siptah]

Game was released on 10th Feb. Which was a Monday. That is why it makes sense to count weeks starting on a Monday. If you want to coubt each week. Personally I prefer to just add up the figures each month.

Sorry, I wasn't precise. I wrote release, but I meant start of reviews trickling in and then wait until you have two weeks. And reviews started on the 5th of February apparently, during early access. Looking at monthly averages is also fine, especially once more time passed and we have 10+ data points.

 

[Smegger213]

Sorry, I wasn't precise. I wrote release, but I meant start of reviews trickling in and then wait until you have two weeks. And reviews started on the 5th of February apparently, during early access. Looking at monthly averages is also fine, especially once more time passed and we have 10+ data points.

Does it really matter?
This is one reason why it's not really feasible to count reviews on a weekly basis. Far better to count them at the end of each month. Plus keeping an eye on the total review count and the average number of players each month.

 

[ColtSeavers]

It's simple - the data is junk in the first place. I mean you could make qualitative conclusion that Civ7 has not the best reception so far. But any attempts to get quantitative results, like trends, fail because we have so limited data.

BTW, a piece of information to mull over - we usually look at reviews for the base game, but there are separate reviews on, for example, DLC content. They are really few and thus have even less value, but since this thread is about speculation it could be interesting to speculate about them and their difference with the base game reviews.

The data is not junk per se, it is just what you make of it. You certainly can't draw conclusions from some small percentage shifts over a short time period, but in the long run and with a large number of data points, this data is very valid. A game which has almost 50k reviews on Steam with an average rating of 47% is obviously in serious trouble. To say there are no quantitative results for this conclusion is absurd and is more wishful thinking than anything else.

 

[Xur]

I'm kinda checked out of this discussion because it's so stupid, but you can ask yourselves how granular you want to go and whether it makes sense. It's like looking through a microscope at an asphalt road - it's going to be bumpy and rocky. You can find places where it appears to go up or down, but if you zoom out, it's a flat road.

In the case of Civ 7, it's a very slightly downhill road that's flattening out. There's no proof of an incline coming. The only reasonable way to measure with this low amount of reviews is over months.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The data is not junk per se, it is just what you make of it. You certainly can't draw conclusions from some small percentage shifts over a short time period, but in the long run and with a large number of data points, this data is very valid.

I was saying generally the same thing. Overall number of reviews has some statistical significance, daily/weekly hasn't.

A game which has almost 50k reviews on Steam with an average rating of 47% is obviously in serious trouble. To say there are no quantitative results for this conclusion is absurd and is more wishful thinking than anything else.

Define "serious trouble". Many games with lower reviews are commercially successful. Many games with higher reviews aren't.

 

[Kev1916]

It's simple - the data is junk in the first place. I mean you could make qualitative conclusion that Civ7 has not the best reception so far. But any attempts to get quantitative results, like trends, fail because we have so limited data.

BTW, a piece of information to mull over - we usually look at reviews for the base game, but there are separate reviews on, for example, DLC content. They are really few and thus have even less value, but since this thread is about speculation it could be interesting to speculate about them and their difference with the base game reviews.

Correct & from reviews the only "data" we can take is the game is in a negative score,.
The recent reviews are worse than the overall reviews .

Re DLC this "civ" has perhaps the worst review score I have ever seen on steam with 88% Negative

 

[Kev1916]

I'm kinda checked out of this discussion because it's so stupid, but you can ask yourselves how granular you want to go and whether it makes sense. It's like looking through a microscope at an asphalt road - it's going to be bumpy and rocky. You can find places where it appears to go up or down, but if you zoom out, it's a flat road.

In the case of Civ 7, it's a very slightly downhill road that's flattening out. There's no proof of an incline coming. The only reasonable way to measure with this low amount of reviews is over months.

Yep yesterday was International Snow Leopard day and in other news for "civ" vii there were 9 reviews 88% negative ! today is not going to well either .

Enjoy the weekend all

​

 

[Gorbles]

Re DLC this "civ" has perhaps the worst review score I have ever seen on steam with 88% Negative

Worst-rated videogame on Steam (including expansions and DLC)

Must have a minimum of 500 user reviews. To calculate this record, visit http://store.steampowered.com/ , browse products and select

www.guinnessworldrecords.com

The first entry here is pretty funny. I guess it meant bad things for Civ VI.

 

[Leucarum]

Worst-rated videogame on Steam (including expansions and DLC)

Must have a minimum of 500 user reviews. To calculate this record, visit http://store.steampowered.com/ , browse products and select

www.guinnessworldrecords.com

The first entry here is pretty funny. I guess it meant bad things for Civ VI.

That was an especially awful DLC.

 

[Gorbles]

That was an especially awful DLC.

I don't really have an opinion either way, kinda irrelevant given the user score was even worse than the one Kev is highlighting.

Just funny, in-context (to me, anyhow).

 

[Leucarum]

I don't really have an opinion either way, kinda irrelevant given the user score was even worse than the one Kev is highlighting.

Just funny, in-context (to me, anyhow).

I agree. I knew it was bad I just didn't know it was record breakingly bad!

 

[IntelligentDisk]

If people get a warm glow when checking daily reviews and find a 6 to 4 positive score for a massive 10 people than bash on

Yep yesterday was International Snow Leopard day and in other news for "civ" vii there were 9 reviews 88% negative ! today is not going to well either

The duality of man. I'll respond to others who have responded to me later when I have more time, found this very funny though!

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Maybe someone with more tiime on their hands than me might want to try a rolling average rather than arguing over where exactly to start and end? If daily data is available somewhere

That's what the graph shows. It's a rolling 2-week average.

 

[Siddorm]

What about the issue with the fact that you can get a totally different graph, by starting the counted week on a different day?

I do not believe that you can.

 

[youngsteve]

There are a couple of people in this thread who obviously have shares with Take 2, as they seem to virtually live on here, spouting mental gymnastics to somehow show that this game isn't failing & is somehow a success. Very sad. The truth of the matter is that this game is not a success, is really unpopular for an A list title game, & struggling to get within half the total of an ancient 15 year preecessor +1.