Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Snowchild]

I like how the goalposts have moved. If the game continues to recover, they'll probably move further.

What recovery...? The game still has less players than Civ V and mixed reviews and 45% of people reviewing are still not recommending it

The trends you guys keep going on and on about in circles are interesting sure but hardly indictive that the game is saved

 

[Snowchild]

It's 57.6% over the past 30 days, 63% over the past 2 weeks & 60.5% over the past week. None of 57.6, 63 or 60.5 are "barely" above 50.

Still mixed and yes I would consider 57% to barely above 50. That would still be a failing grade by almost any account

Civ VI also had less players than Civ V for 2 years.

After having a much better launch and nearly doubling its predessecor peak player counts.. Something VII couldn't manage. Not to mention VI never had its player counts drop below and start competing with IV's, which would be the more accurate comparison here. Civ VI didn't have a slow start (like that 2K executive have already admitted regarding VII's sales)

Civ VI lost players who went back to V while they waited for the game to be more feature complete (or like my case waited for mod tools for AI improvements that were never released). VII lost players because over half of them didn't like the game and you can see poll after poll even among this community were design choices prevent large chunks of the fanbase from even entertaining this entry.

These are not the same situations

Also, Civ VII recently had a better reviewed week which was better than any Civ VI week for almost a year from early December 2016 to November 2017, most of Civ VIs first year.

View attachment 747607

and still less players than V. All this graph is showing us is that VI was generally better recieved

 

[Gorbles]

What recovery...?

The sheer number of positive reviews it requires to substantially shift the established user review score means that even small % shifts are actually notable. So yes, recovery (in the eyes of the players, which are probably what's important). It doesn't mean the game is done and everything is fine, of course.

but hardly indictive that the game is saved

Who said the game was "saved"? I didn't.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Still mixed and yes I would consider 57% to barely above 50. That would still be a failing grade by almost any account

51/52 is barely above 50. 57 is closer to 60 than 50.

After having a much better launch and nearly doubling its predessecor peak player counts.. Something VII couldn't manage. Civ VI didn't have a slow start (like that 2K executive have already admitted regarding VII's sales)

There are multiple factors which are different about the launches of VI & VII.

1. VI only launched on Steam. VII launched on Steam, Epic Games Store, PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S & Switch. It's also now on Switch 2.
2. VI was more affordable/VII is more expensive.
3. VI launched in October leading into the Winter/Christmas period, VII launched in February leading into Spring.
4. VI had sales come quicker and were more substantial. Biggest sale for VI at this point was 40%. VII has only just gone on sale for 35%.
5. More and tougher competition than in 2016. Civ VI had the 4th highest peak concurrent players out of any game in 2016 on Steam. It would be 19th so far in 2025.
6. VII had 2 launch dates separating the player base, resulting in a lower peak than if it had only had 1 launch date.

Not to mention VI never had its player counts drop below and start competing with IV's, which would be the more accurate comparison here.

You don't know that. Most Civ IV players did not originally play it on Steam. So unless you've got a different way to track non-Steam Civ IV players in 2016/2017 then we will never know. I think it's possible that Civ VI fell below Civ IV.

Civ VI lost players who went back to V while they waited for the game to be more feature complete (or like my case waited for mod tools for AI improvements that were never released). VII lost players because over half of them didn't like the game and you can see poll after poll even among this community were design choices prevent large chunks of the fanbase from even entertaining this entry.

These are not the same situations

So, Civ VI also lost players like Civ VII. Losing 80-90% of players after launch is completely normal. Civ VIIs Steam player retention is actually better than most other games released this year. With the overall Steam review % that Civ VII has, you would expect MUCH worse player retention, and less players. But actually that isn't reflected in the Steam players. It's player retention has been better than 80%+ reviewed strategy games like Age of Wonders, Stellaris, Manor Lords & recently Endless Legend II when comparing them to the same point in the life cycle that they or Civ VII is at now.

and still less players than V. All this graph is showing us is that VI was generally better recieved

Just like VI had less players for 2 years. VI was generally better received up until this point, that's right. If the recent reviews keep staying around the 60% mark though then Civ VIIs recent reviews will be better than what VIs recent reviews were after the first 6 weeks until after a year after its release. Year 2 wasn't much better for VI either.