Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Smegger213]

IntelligentDesk isnt even raving about some upturn in reviews to be honest, they simply pointed out thats its the best 2 weeks since release. No idea why Smegger keeps on talking about irrelevant things. Its all a bit odd

Because it was him that decided he wanted to do his count from a Thursday.
Where as I proved that you could get totally different results by starting a weekly count on a different day.
With the game releasing on a Tuesday, wouldn't it make sense to start weekly counts on a Tuesday?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think the problem here is just too hot discussion. @IntelligentDisk took some 14-day period and claimed that it was the best 2-week period in terms of Civ7 reviews. This claim is correct. In this form, in this exact meaning. Attacking claim itself doesn't make sense from logical standpoint. If you take another 14-day period (i.e. starting from Monday) and show that it has worse reviews, you only support @IntelligentDisk's claim - that the period chosen by him is better.

If you dislike this claim, but don't want to go against formal logic, there are more than enough points to attack. For example:

• The change is not statistically significant. Number of reviews is small and so does the change.
• Changes in trend are not enough to tickle review score towards positive in observable future, which means some potential buyers will keep being averted.
• etc.

There are plenty of way to keep this discussion going well without personal attacks and bending logic.

 

[PlatinumPoster]

It's more than 2 people but definitely I think we could all with a little perspective. There's gonna be noise, reviews are gonna drop down again, and the changes are pretty small in any case... This could go on for a while.

Because it was him that decided he wanted to do his count from a Thursday.
Where as I proved that you could get totally different results by starting a weekly count on a different day.
With the game releasing on a Tuesday, wouldn't it make sense to start weekly counts on a Tuesday?

Yeah fair, and yep could just be noise, as there isnt any significant change at this point, we will have to see how things develop going forward

Anyway, agreed not worth the arguments as I think we all know we arent seeing any signifcant changes at this point, and that there has been a slight improvement in reviews in the last 2 weeks (and is not yet inidicative of a long term trend), and at this point its more about interesting small changes.

For any significant change e.g. for it to be overall Poitive; I think we are looking at > 1 year

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Off-course you are banging on about them. The fact that you keep coming back to me proves that.
Also, I fail to see how one week of 50.2% and another week of 50% equates to 2 weeks ABOVE 50%?
Also, it does make a difference what day of the week you start counting from. Because if you start on a Tuesday, suddenly its 2 weeks of 49.2% positive.
Also, I am not trying to disprove that the last 2 full weeks have seen the best positive reviews for a good while.

If you put the graph to 1 week, you get 94 positive & 97 negative, which puts it back to 49.2%

So if I'm banging on about them then so are you? Odd to criticise me for what you're also doing.

The fact that you keep coming back to me proves that.

Exact same applies to you. I keep responding to you because you keep/kept denying facts.

I said

The overall 2 week period is above 50%

Which is a fact.

Once again, yes if you use a different time period you will get different results - nothing to do with my claim (based on factual data) that we recently had the best 2 weeks since launch.

What I am saying is that it means NOTHING until you get lots of weeks where you get more positive than negative reviews. There is no sign that this will happen yet. We need to see a lot more weeks.

I disagree. I think the best 2 week period since launch is significant and shows great improvement compared to other recent months. You're right there is no sign the uptick in positive reviews will continue. We will have to wait and see what happens.

Because it was him that decided he wanted to do his count from a Thursday.
Where as I proved that you could get totally different results by starting a weekly count on a different day.
With the game releasing on a Tuesday, wouldn't it make sense to start weekly counts on a Tuesday?

The count should start on Thursday 6th February as that's when the first reviews come in. Then, you can accurately compare to other games (which is what I do when I look at "player retention"). It makes no sense to start it on a Tuesday. What Tuesday would you start on? Tuesday 11th February which will omit 64% of all reviews? Or Tuesday 4th February - 2 days before the early access period starts. Neither of those make any sense.

Having said that, it doesn't even matter that the start of this 2 week period was a Thursday - it's irrelevant to the claim "it was the best 2 week period since launch". I've said this multiple times.

 

[Gorbles]

Arguing over fractions of a percent is missing the point, which is that the game both most a lot of sales over it’s predecessor, and over half of those that did buy it dislike it.

"the point" is your point. It wasn't mine. It isn't necessarily anyone elses' point (though it of course could be).

Repeating this point also doesn't provide much, if any, constructive value to the thread. We know! It's a known situation!

So people look for new data where they can, and they discuss it. That's exactly what this thread has always been about. Surely there's no need to argue against it just because the data looks positive for a change? Do the same posters argue with negative trends are suggested? No, they don't. Why? If there's no point to any of it, why only rail against things that show the game possibly, maybe, improving in the public eye?

Does the idea that that's possible worry them so much? I don't know! I'm just guessing, because nobody ever seems to say.

 

[Smegger213]

So if I'm banging on about them then so are you? Odd to criticise me for what you're also doing.


Exact same applies to you. I keep responding to you because you keep/kept denying facts.

I said

Which is a fact.

Once again, yes if you use a different time period you will get different results - nothing to do with my claim (based on factual data) that we recently had the best 2 weeks since launch.


I disagree. I think the best 2 week period since launch is significant and shows great improvement compared to other recent months. You're right there is no sign the uptick in positive reviews will continue. We will have to wait and see what happens.


The count should start on Thursday 6th February as that's when the first reviews come in. Then, you can accurately compare to other games (which is what I do when I look at "player retention"). It makes no sense to start it on a Tuesday. What Tuesday would you start on? Tuesday 11th February which will omit 64% of all reviews? Or Tuesday 4th February - 2 days before the early access period starts. Neither of those make any sense.

Having said that, it doesn't even matter that the start of this 2 week period was a Thursday - it's irrelevant to the claim "it was the best 2 week period since launch". I've said this multiple times.

Yet again your so called facts are wrong.
2 weeks above 50% is wrong no matter if you start on a Tuesday or a Thursday. That is because its either 1 x 50.2% and 1 x 50% or 2 x 49.2%. Both examples do not mean 2 weeks are above 50%. Both weeks have to show above 50%, and the simple proof is that they don't.

I am not disputing that the last 2 weeks have shown an improvement in the positive count. I am disputing your claim of 2 weeks above 50%.

But no matter. I am done with arguing with you. Let's see what its like come the end of the month. Then we can compare month by month on both player numbers and review numbers.

 

[Wrenched]

Certainly a lot of Sturm und Drang over a small handful of dudes and dudettes that purchased keys from reseller sites/grey market then left positive reviews that won't even be counted in Steam's official aggregate.

 

[Smegger213]

Certainly a lot of Sturm und Drang over a small handful of dudes and dudettes that purchased keys from reseller sites/grey market then left positive reviews that won't even be counted in Steam's official aggregate.

The reviews are split between Steam purchases and "others". I assume when you buy from a key site, your purchase goes into the "others" category when you activate the key on Steam.

 

[Gorbles]

Certainly a lot of Sturm und Drang over a small handful of dudes and dudettes that purchased keys from reseller sites/grey market then left positive reviews that won't even be counted in Steam's official aggregate.

It's always interesting to see which reviews are okay to undermine, discount or otherwise put down, and which ones are sacrosanct and must be respected.

 

[Smegger213]

It's always interesting to see which reviews are okay to undermine, discount or otherwise put down, and which ones are sacrosanct and must be respected.

I bought the game from a key site, purely because it was cheaper.
Does that make my review any different than anybody else's?

 

[Wrenched]

The reviews are split between Steam purchases and "others". I assume when you buy from a key site, your purchase goes into the "others" category when you activate the key on Steam.

Yeah the content of all reviews matter but Steam makes a distinction on which ones count towards the official Steam store aggregate.

Which is a little distinction to keep in mind when discussing trends or what counts to moving the needle on the principle storefront.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Certainly a lot of Sturm und Drang over a small handful of dudes and dudettes that purchased keys from reseller sites/grey market then left positive reviews that won't even be counted in Steam's official aggregate.

They account for 24% of all reviews so I wouldn't say a "small handful". Just because they aren't Steam purchases doesn't mean they aren't counted on the platform.

Yet again your so called facts are wrong.
2 weeks above 50% is wrong no matter if you start on a Tuesday or a Thursday. That is because its either 1 x 50.2% and 1 x 50% or 2 x 49.2%. Both examples do not mean 2 weeks are above 50%. Both weeks have to show above 50%, and the simple proof is that they don't.

I am not disputing that the last 2 weeks have shown an improvement in the positive count. I am disputing your claim of 2 weeks above 50%.

But no matter. I am done with arguing with you. Let's see what its like come the end of the month. Then we can compare month by month on both player numbers and review numbers.

How many times do I have to say the overall 2 week period was over 50%. You know what overall means. That means all positive & negative reviews in that 2 week period. No, both weeks don't have to show above 50% if I'm saying the overall 2 week period had over 50%.

I bought the game from a key site, purely because it was cheaper.
Does that make my review any different than anybody else's?

No, that's the point he is making. It matters just as much as anyone else. The other user is making it sounds like it's a tiny minority when they count for 24% of all reviews. Even if they only counted for 0.1%, they still matter.

 

[Smegger213]

They account for 24% of all reviews so I wouldn't say a "small handful". Just because they aren't Steam purchases doesn't mean they aren't counted on the platform.

View attachment 745925View attachment 745926


How many times do I have to say the overall 2 week period was over 50%. You know what overall means. That means all positive & negative reviews in that 2 week period. No, both weeks don't have to show above 50% if I'm saying the overall 2 week period had over 50%.


No, that's the point he is making. It matters just as much as anyone else. The other user is making it sounds like it's a tiny minority when they count for 24% of all reviews. Even if they only counted for 0.1%, they still matter.

I really don't understand when you have 1 week that gets 50.2% and a 2nd week that gets 50% dead, how you can say that overall the 2 weeks were above 50%? One week is only 0.2% above 50%. How the hell can both weeks be overall above 50% positive?

 

[IntelligentDisk]

I really don't understand when you have 1 week that gets 50.2% and a 2nd week that gets 50% dead, how you can say that overall the 2 weeks were above 50%? One week is only 0.2% above 50%. How the hell can both weeks be overall above 50% positive?

Overall 2 week period ≠ each individual week. Overall across the 2 weeks, 208 positive reviews, 207 negative reviews, 50.1% positive in total. First time since February.

 

[Wrenched]

They account for 24% of all reviews so I wouldn't say a "small handful". Just because they aren't Steam purchases doesn't mean they aren't counted on the platform.

View attachment 745925View attachment 745926


How many times do I have to say the overall 2 week period was over 50%. You know what overall means. That means all positive & negative reviews in that 2 week period. No, both weeks don't have to show above 50% if I'm saying the overall 2 week period had over 50%.


No, that's the point he is making. It matters just as much as anyone else. The other user is making it sounds like it's a tiny minority when they count for 24% of all reviews. Even if they only counted for 0.1%, they still matter.

You are misreading a bit. I meant small handful in the context of October numbers not overall.

Sure, the textual content of all reviews matter.

Steam just excludes key purchasers from counting towards the aggregate.

I guess it is up to each individual if they want to give more weight to the SteamDB combined total or the Steam store official aggregate.

I suspect more eyes are on one over the other but who knows.

 

[Smegger213]

Overall 2 week period ≠ each individual week. Overall across the 2 weeks, 208 positive reviews, 207 negative reviews, 50.1% positive in total. First time since February.

Big deal!
Counting those 2 weeks starting on a Tuesday.
Week 1, 123 positive, 127 negative.
Week 2, 97 positive, 100 negative.
Totals for both weeks together = 220 positive, 227 negative.
Result is both weeks are negative.

I notice that you conveniently discount the week before, from 2nd Oct. Which had a massive difference at 139 positive to 174 negative. 44.4%.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Big deal!
Counting those 2 weeks starting on a Tuesday.
Week 1, 123 positive, 127 negative.
Week 2, 97 positive, 100 negative.
Totals for both weeks together = 220 positive, 227 negative.
Result is both weeks are negative.

I notice that you conveniently discount the week before, from 2nd Oct. Which had a massive difference at 139 positive to 174 negative. 44.4%.

Here you are again using a different time period. I'll keep saying it until you get - using a different time period doesn't mean anything and doesn't disprove the fact that we had the best 2 week period since launch at 50.1%.

Why would I count the week before in my claim (based on factual data) that we had the best 2 week period since launch...?

 

[tman2000]

Why? If there's no point to any of it, why only rail against things that show the game possibly, maybe, improving in the public eye?

Does the idea that that's possible worry them so much? I don't know! I'm just guessing, because nobody ever seems to say.

I believe people have answered your question in depth over and over again, and it's a bit tiresome to hear you accuse all of those people of not actually addressing the issue.

We believe that Civ 7 is a flop, because there are poor design choices, unfinished features and UI, and an objectively poor reception. We want for this to be officially acknowledged, both in the community discourse and by the developers (publisher etc.), and for substantial changes to be pursued. This is because we want the game to succeed, and it's pretty clear that it just never will otherwise.

Nitpicking little upticks in reviews this late in the game doesn't do anything to change anything about the status of Civ 7, and it honestly leaves a lot of people curious as to what the point or benefit of that is. What benefit comes from denying that the game hasn't done well and isn't well liked by possibly a majority of its intended audience?

 

[Evolena]

I really don't understand when you have 1 week that gets 50.2% and a 2nd week that gets 50% dead, how you can say that overall the 2 weeks were above 50%? One week is only 0.2% above 50%. How the hell can both weeks be overall above 50% positive?

Are we really arguing about > or >= ?

 

[Kev1916]

Overall 2 week period ≠ each individual week. Overall across the 2 weeks, 208 positive reviews, 207 negative reviews, 50.1% positive in total. First time since February.

Keep that up and in a few hundred years ‘civ” Vii will get to an over all positive review score