Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Smegger213]

How many times do we have to go over this?

Civ V and Civ VI have had many years and many, many big sales that grew the player base substantially. Civ VII has some catching up to do, but it's only been out for 10 months and has only had a couple of OK sales. Give it some time.

The point is that Civ 5, a game that came out in 2010, is getting a higher player count than what Civ 7 is getting. If Civ 7 was the great success that everybody wants it to be, then it needs to be getting double the number of players that Civ 5 is getting.

 

[Kwami]

The point is that Civ 5, a game that came out in 2010, is getting a higher player count than what Civ 7 is getting. If Civ 7 was the great success that everybody wants it to be, then it needs to be getting double the number of players that Civ 5 is getting.

No, the point is that Civ 5 has had many years and many, many very good sales to build its player base while Civ 7 has not. In this very thread, you can find multiple graphs that show Civ 6's player count trailing Civ 5's player count for approximately two years after release. The pattern is repeating again with Civ 7. Come back in two years and we can talk about player count vs. Civ 5/6.

 

[Kev1916]

The point is that Civ 5, a game that came out in 2010, is getting a higher player count than what Civ 7 is getting. If Civ 7 was the great success that everybody wants it to be, then it needs to be getting double the number of players that Civ 5 is getting.

It's an echo chamber M8 , white mice running on a wheel .

Civ V is 2 , two ! version's back - and gets more than double the players than "Civ" 7 .

 

[Smegger213]

It's an echo chamber M8 , white mice running on a wheel .

Civ V is 2 , two ! version's back - and gets more than double the players than "Civ" 7 .

Yeah. Banging your head against a brick wall springs to mind.
The simple fact is that Civ 7 should be trouncing Civ 5's player numbers.

 

[Kwami]

The simple fact is that Civ 7 should be trouncing Civ 5's player numbers.

Based on absolutely nothing.

 

[Smegger213]

Based on absolutely nothing.

Look pal. Civ 7 SHOULD be trouncing Civ 5 in player numbers. End of story. What is the problem with some of you guys?
Farming Simulator 25 is getting an average of over 25,000 players.
Europa Universalis 5, a similar game to Civ, which has only just came out. Is getting an average of over 36,000.

 

[Gorbles]

Its not that great a number when you compare it to Civ 5 and 6.

Nobody said it was. I recommend not shifting the goalposts and trying to engage with the actual post that was made.

 

[Smegger213]

Nobody said it was. I recommend not shifting the goalposts and trying to engage with the actual post that was made.

I was answering Krajzen's post where he was saying that 12000 players was quite good for a 10 month old game.
I was saying that it is basically trash compared to Civ 5, Civ 6 and Europa Uni 5.

 

[Kwami]

Look pal. Civ 7 SHOULD be trouncing Civ 5 in player numbers. End of story.

Based on absolutely nothing and contrary to historical evidence.

 

[Kwami]

I'll also point out that EU5 is still in its release month, so the numbers mean absolutely nothing compared to a game that's been out for 10 months. And to say that EU5 is "similar to" Civ is simply absurd. They both have historical theming. That's just about the end of the similarities.

 

[Smegger213]

Based on absolutely nothing and contrary to historical evidence.

What historical evidence?
Look, its all opinion. Nothing more. Pointless arguing the toss because you don't like what I wrote.

 

[Gorbles]

I was answering Krajzen's post where he was saying that 12000 players was quite good for a 10 month old game.
I was saying that it is basically trash compared to Civ 5, Civ 6 and Europa Uni 5.

I know. I'm saying taking a post that describes how Civ VII has a stable playerbase that has stopped bottoming out and changing the argument to "it's worse than other games" is, well, changing the argument.

Nobody was claiming it was doing better than V or VI. That wasn't the point.

 

[aelf]

It's an echo chamber M8 , white mice running on a wheel .

And how would you describe the activity of constantly complaining about a 'dead' game?

 

[Kwami]

What historical evidence?
Look, its all opinion. Nothing more. Pointless arguing the toss because you don't like what I wrote.

As I wrote previously, and as many others have shown, Civ6 had lower player counts than Civ5 for two years after release. So, it's not at all surprising that Civ7 has fewer players than Civ5 and Civ6. Being available for many years and having many steep discounts grows the player base substantially.

(We don't have useful data for Civ4 because it predates Steam, so we can't compare Civ6 vs. Civ4.)

Oh, and your previous post was, "The simple fact is that Civ 7 should be trouncing Civ 5's player numbers." Then you come along and say that it's all just opinions. Facts and opinions are not the same.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well, there is things that are called long sellers too... just sayin'.

Obviously Civ7 didn't escape to the first days hype, but it can recover. Aside from any in-game consideration.

 

[Smegger213]

As I wrote previously, and as many others have shown, Civ6 had lower player counts than Civ5 for two years after release. So, it's not at all surprising that Civ7 has fewer players than Civ5 and Civ6. Being available for many years and having many steep discounts grows the player base substantially.

(We don't have useful data for Civ4 because it predates Steam, so we can't compare Civ6 vs. Civ4.)

Oh, and your previous post was, "The simple fact is that Civ 7 should be trouncing Civ 5's player numbers." Then you come along and say that it's all just opinions. Facts and opinions are not the same.

Civ 5 was getting around 25000 to 30000 during its first 3 years.
Civ 6 was getting around 26000 to over 30000 during its first 3 years.
In its 1st year, Civ 5 was getting between around 22000 to 32000 players.
In its 1st year, Civ 6 was getting between around 25000 to over 35000 players.

Now here we are with Civ 7, 10 months in, and its only getting 12000 players.
Which one is the poorly received game?

 

[trev1972]

Not sure what those statements really apply to mate.
Does it matter which version players started with?
If you look at the negative reviews on Steam, tons of them say things like "I have played every version of Civilization right from the 1st one". Or "I started playing with Civilization IV" etc.
The main thing is how players see what the state of Civilization 7 is at. Yes they compare it to IV, V and VI mainly. But, the games success or failure will hang on what the devs do to the game over the next year.

I think those who started with 1 or 2 tend to be older players (such as myself who started with 1)
I am guessing, but i would imagine we trend more towards those who prefer 'traditional civ' and i would not be surprised if a lot of those who started with 1 consider 4 to be peak.

This is a complete guess/vibe i have gotten from reading civ 7 reviews and isnt backed up by actual data so take it with a pinch of salt

 

[Smegger213]

I think those who started with 1 or 2 tend to be older players (such as myself who started with 1)
I am guessing, but i would imagine we trend more towards those who prefer 'traditional civ' and i would not be surprised if a lot of those who started with 1 consider 4 to be peak.

This is a complete guess/vibe i have gotten from reading civ 7 reviews and isnt backed up by actual data so take it with a pinch of salt

I too started with Civ 1. I may have had it on my Amiga 1200. I just cannot remember that far back.
But yes, peak Civ would probably be Civ 4 for me. Although I do like Civ 5. Hate Civ 6, just couldn't get into it.
Just finished a Cultural Victory in Civ 7 with Teach. But by the end of the game, I was just bored out of my skin. I think that is my major issue with Civ 7.
I would love to play Civ 4 with todays graphics. Now that would be something.

 

[Kwami]

Civ 5 was getting around 25000 to 30000 during its first 3 years.
Civ 6 was getting around 26000 to over 30000 during its first 3 years.
In its 1st year, Civ 5 was getting between around 22000 to 32000 players.
In its 1st year, Civ 6 was getting between around 25000 to over 35000 players.

Now here we are with Civ 7, 10 months in, and its only getting 12000 players.
Which one is the poorly received game?

You're moving the goalposts again. Your claim was that Civ7 should have more players than Civ5, which I refuted with historical evidence to the contrary.

To date, I'm not aware of anyone that has claimed that Civ7 is doing as well as Civ6 did.

 

[Smegger213]

You're moving the goalposts again. Your claim was that Civ7 should have more players than Civ5, which I refuted with historical evidence to the contrary.

To date, I'm not aware of anyone that has claimed that Civ7 is doing as well as Civ6 did.

You stated that Civ 6 had lower player counts than Civ 5 for 2 years after release. I have proved by looking at the historical graphs that this was NOT the case.
What I am saying is this:
If Civ 7 was seen as being any good, then surely there should be more people playing it than those that are playing Civ 5. A game that is 15 years old.