Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[IntelligentDisk]

The fact that you celebrate an 81.9% loss in players is hilarious.
Your top 13 games listed are meaningless to compare, because they all are different and have different player bases.

EG Elden Ring Nightreign started with a peak of over 313,593 players. Now its down to a peak of 90,018. That's a drop of 71.9%
Civ 7 started with a peak of 84,558, now its 12,733. That's a drop of 84.94%.
Civ 7 lost more players, go figure eh?

Why are you not comparing player drops with Civ 5 & Civ 6?
After all, both games have dropped far less players than Civ 7.

Oh, and I have stated that I am bored with the late game. From about half way through the Exploration Age. This despite the fact that my play time is now over 166 hours.
I am not the only person that has said that either. Players on here have mentioned boredom, plus its come up on numerous reviews.
However, I am giving the game a chance. I am not one of those that have totally stopped playing altogether.
I will wait to see what happens next with the next patch etc. Plus what happens with any upcoming dlc.

You've got no clue about player retention and it shows. Most games lose the vast majority (75%+) of their launch player base quickly. I just proved it to you, showing you Civ VII has better than all the other games which had highest revenue on Steam in 2025 and you still are in denial calling the player retention bad. If VIIs player retention is bad, then the majority of games have bad player retention. That makes no sense.

I already did compare it to Civ VI and you ignored it. I'll post it again.

Over the past 6 months/180 days, the player retention difference between Civ VI & Civ VII at the same point in each life cycle is 4%, in favour of Civ VI.
Over the past 4 months/120 days, the player retention difference between Civ VI & Civ VII at the same point in each life cycle is 3.9%, in favour of Civ VI.
Over the past 2 months/120 days, the player retention difference between Civ VI & Civ VII at the same point in each life cycle is 2.7%, in favour of Civ VI.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming. - Quintillus
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kent77]

It feels this thread might be more productive if we just ignored certain contributions rather than rewarding them with a response. Trying to argue with anyone seemingly determined to ignore reasoned analyses and unable to understand relative change over time seems pointless.

 

[Smegger213]

It feels this thread might be more productive if we just ignored certain contributions rather than rewarding them with a response. Trying to argue with anyone seemingly determined to ignore reasoned analyses and unable to understand relative change over time seems pointless.

Am with you there mate.
This thread has degenerated into just mass arguing.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It feels this thread might be more productive if we just ignored certain contributions rather than rewarding them with a response. Trying to argue with anyone seemingly determined to ignore reasoned analyses and unable to understand relative change over time seems pointless.

 

[Gorbles]

Am with you there mate.
This thread has degenerated into just mass arguing.

The only arguing starts whenever anyone posts objective stats about the game's fortunes possibly improving.

(I know, I know, I'm arguing about arguing. I think kent77's right)

 

[Smegger213]

The only arguing starts whenever anyone posts objective stats about the game's fortunes possibly improving.

(I know, I know, I'm arguing about arguing. I think kent77's right)

Well that's not true either. There was still plenty of arguing when the positive review count wasn't improving. Its a good few months back now. But it was going on.

 

[Gorbles]

Sure. The only arguing that starts nowadays, then

 

[IntelligentDisk]

It feels this thread might be more productive if we just ignored certain contributions rather than rewarding them with a response. Trying to argue with anyone seemingly determined to ignore reasoned analyses and unable to understand relative change over time seems pointless.

I agree, even when you present them with fair concrete data which they requested they'll come back with "what about this 1 game at 7 months into its life cycle which recently had an expansion released which got a higher peak in the past 30 days?"

 

[Evolena]

Were you also instilled with boredom and didn't have a good experience?

That's not the question, you were quite dismissive of how or why other people may play despite not fully enjoying it. You may not understand it, but that doesn't make it something that doesn't exist.

 

[Leucarum]

Using platinum or gold Steam games released in 2025 and using the 30-day peak concurrent players at launch (day 30) compared to the 30-day peak concurrent players at day 180, this is what you get:

1. Civilization VII (81.9% loss)
2. Elden Ring: Nightreign (82.2% loss)
3. Inzoi (82.9% loss)
4. Expedition 33 (88% loss)
5. Assassins Creed: Shadows (90.1% loss)
6. Kingdom Come: Deliverance II (90.3% loss)
7. Schedule 1 (90.7% loss)
8. Stellar Blade (92.2% loss)
9. Split Fiction (92.5% loss)
10. Dune Awakening (93.7%)
11. Doom: The Dark Ages (94% loss)
12. Monster Hunter: Wilds (94.5% loss)
13. Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered (97.6% loss)

Only games that have actually been out for 6+ months have been included, otherwise you obviously can't compare the first 30 days to the 30 days up to day 180. I chose day 180 to fit in 13 games while still maintaining a good timeframe.

It's worth noting these games are all different genres, released at different prices ranging $20 to $70 (Civ VII is one of four at $70 along with Monster Hunter: Wilds, Assassins Creed: Shadows & Doom: The Dark Ages), and all had different sales (Civ VII has the highest lowest price in the first 6 months out of these 13 games).

Nothing is being spinned. I'm presenting facts and data, and the facts & data look like this to me: commercial success, critically polarizing. I honestly don't have any idea how you play a game for 150 hours yet you're not having a good experience, and it instils pure boredom.

I believe you were the one who pointed out to me that Civ7's early access messes up the player retention stats (I might be wrong there, but I remember doing the same thing as you and being corrected as I was surprised how good Civ7 looked in that instance.). Since the peak within 30 days usually falls at launch, we have no idea how high Civ7's 30-day peak really would have been had everyone got access to it simultaneously. 89% retention is probably the best case scenario, and it's almost definitely worse than that, but we have no way of knowing how much lower player retention actually was.

Firaxis are saying preorders were very strong for the franchise... But it also has very low absolute player numbers relative to Civ6 at this stage... Maybe console/non-steam players are really picking up the slack, but I suspect player retention has to be lower than your estimate because the peak was squished into a plateau...Given the absolute numbers, my a priori would be that it's significantly worse, but I doubt anyone outside of Firaxis would be able to say for certain based on available data.

And I'm not saying 7 is a failure or doomed... Just that I was convinced by others - I honestly thought by you - on this forum that player retention can't be as rosy as it looks.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

This has been said but I'm not sure how much can be gleaned about "player retention" based on peak number of users. Say three people bought the game. They all probably played it the day it came out. Player A plays M-W-F, Player B plays T-TH: Person C only on Saturday and Sunday. The peak users would show that the peak of three was on release day and then retention went down the drain to one (even though all of the players are still playing).

 

[IntelligentDisk]

That's not the question, you were quite dismissive of how or why other people may play despite not fully enjoying it. You may not understand it, but that doesn't make it something that doesn't exist.

I didn't say players who find a game boring and they don't have a good experience yet still play 150+ hours don't exist. I find it extremely odd that someone would willingly put themselves through that. It's like hate-playing.

I believe you were the one who pointed out to me that Civ7's early access messes up the player retention stats (I might be wrong there, but I remember doing the same thing as you and being corrected as I was surprised how good Civ7 looked in that instance.). Since the peak within 30 days usually falls at launch, we have no idea how high Civ7's 30-day peak really would have been had everyone got access to it simultaneously. 89% retention is probably the best case scenario, and it's almost definitely worse than that, but we have no way of knowing how much lower player retention actually was.

There's a big distinction to be made. It isn't the highest peak in the 30-day period, it's the average peak concurrent players of the 30-day period. The absolute peak would be higher if there was only 1 launch, but the drop off in the first week would've been much greater. You'd expect to see the first 7 days to have the highest weekly average peak concurrent players, but for Civ VII this doesn't happen until days 6 to 12.

Firaxis are saying preorders were very strong for the franchise... But it also has very low absolute player numbers relative to Civ6 at this stage... Maybe console/non-steam players are really picking up the slack, but I suspect player retention has to be lower than your estimate because the peak was squished into a plateau...Given the absolute numbers, my a priori would be that it's significantly worse, but I doubt anyone outside of Firaxis would be able to say for certain based on available data.

They aren't that much lower. Civ VII has an average of 9,092 peak concurrent players over the past week on Steam, Civ VI had an average of 17,614 peak concurrent players at the same point in the life cycle (day 339 to 345). Factoring in non-Steam players will have that number either close to or above 17,614.

This has been said but I'm not sure how much can be gleaned about "player retention" based on peak number of users. Say three people bought the game. They all probably played it the day it came out. Player A plays M-W-F, Player B plays T-TH: Person C only on Saturday and Sunday. The peak users would show that the peak of three was on release day and then retention went down the drain to one (even though all of the players are still playing).

It's not foolproof but it's the only way we have to try and gauge Steam player retention.

 

[Leucarum]

You'd expect to see the first 7 days to have the highest weekly average peak concurrent players, but for Civ VII this doesn't happen until days 6 to 12

Civ7's early access was 6 days long between Feb 6th to Feb 11th, hence we have one peak for the early access players, and then another starting 6 days after and peaking the weekend after the general release on Feb 11th.

We can't only make a vague guess what % of those players from early access churned and are part of the general release, but definitely Civ7's first 30 days of data were skewed...

They aren't that much lower.

That's almost half the size, so this is definitely subjective. I'd call that a pretty dramatic difference.

I am not saying Civ7 is doomed, just that maybe we shouldn't be presenting this data with as much certainty.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Civ7's early access was 6 days long between Feb 6th to Feb 11th, hence we have one peak for the early access players, and then another starting 6 days after and peaking the weekend after the general release on Feb 11th.

We can't only make a vague guess what % of those players from early access churned and are part of the general release, but definitely Civ7's first 30 days of data were skewed...

Yeah that leads into what I was saying, the player numbers were elevated for a longer period of time compared to what they would've been had there only been one launch.

One launch = higher absolute peak, big drop off
Two launches = lower absolute peak, higher sustained average across the first 2 weeks followed by less of a dramatic drop off

 

[Leucarum]

Yeah that leads into what I was saying, the player numbers were elevated for a longer period of time compared to what they would've been had there only been one launch.

One launch = higher absolute peak, big drop off
Two launches = lower absolute peak, higher sustained average across the first 2 weeks followed by less of a dramatic drop off

Exactly. We can't have as much confidence that we are in the right ball park for player numbers, and comparing across games, you aren't comparing like-to-like.

Again, I'm not demanding that you declare Civ7 to be a doomed flop. It's more that you are presenting the (unlikely) best case scenario, and our available data is too flawed for us to confidently say how much worse than that it is (FWIW I doubt it's as apocalyptically bad as others on here would like to claim).

 

[Lebo44]

Fun fact:

EU5 has a lower % of positive reviews over the past 30 days compared to Civ 7. Players are complaining over UI, persistent bugs, lack of immersion with the country they control and too much of a departure from the series’ established formula

 

[youngsteve]

Fun fact:

EU5 has a lower % of positive reviews over the past 30 days compared to Civ 7. Players are complaining over UI, persistent bugs, lack of immersion with the country they control and too much of a departure from the series’ established formula

The difference is EU5 is still an EU game, though not close to the previous one, whilst Civ 7 has nothing in common with any of the previous games, & is actually a Humankind clone.

 

[Smegger213]

Lets compare some like for like on player numbers.
Within the first year of release, is where I am looking at here.
Now, because SteamDB didn't start to give a player average count till October 2022. If we want to compare each game in its first year of release, we can only use the player peak number.

This is what it comes out as:

Civ 5
Sept 2010 = 70,096 peak players
Aug 2011 = 28,921 peak players
A drop of 58.74%

Civ 6
Oct 2016 = 162,475 peak players
Sept 2017 = 25,139 peak players
A drop of 84.52%

Civ 7
Feb 2025 = 84,558 peak players
Dec 2025 = 12,197 peak players
A drop of 85.57%

I know that Civ 7 has only 11 months. But am sure you would get similar percentages if you used 11 months figures for Civ 5 & 6.

As we can see, during its first year of release, Civ 5 did way better at player retention than both Civ 6 and Civ 7.

Also to compare the peaks for December 2025 for all 3 games we get:
Civ 5 = 20388
Civ 6 = 51339
Civ 7 = 12197

Its clear to me which game is performing the worst.

 

[Leucarum]

Civ 7
Feb 2025 = 84,558 peak players

This figure is the problem. Technically yes this is the peak, but realistically it'a been squished by the early access. The same problems I was pointing out to IntelligentDisk apply to this too.

 

[Smegger213]

This figure is the problem. Technically yes this is the peak, but realistically it'a been squished by the early access. The same problems I was pointing out to IntelligentDisk apply to this too.

Like I said, its a more or less, a like for like comparison.
That 84558 number for Civ 7 is for the whole of Feb, Just as the 162475 number for Civ 6 is for the whole of Oct 2016.
Those are the figures presented at the end of the release month.
Now you can take them or leave them, its your choice.