Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gorbles]

Yes, you can always compare Civ 7 with those 2 games. Yes Civ 7 has vastly more player numbers.
But, then again, both Old World and Humankind have far better positive review percentages than Civ 7.

Which is exactly what kotpeter is saying - that there are a number of metrics to consider.

I've seen games crater to sub-500 concurrent Steam users. Whether or not the game continues to get support depends on: what the target was, what the sales were, how much resource it would require to see improvements, and so on.

Given that we have seen improvements to both retention and core numbers, and slight (to moderate) improvements in recent Steam reviews (which has a small impact on the overall review score, but the sheer number of reviews makes this hard to shift - at least without something like Firaxis coming out with continuous-civs-across-Ages with a 2K-aligned branding push) . . . coming back to just review percentages is limiting in the same way that just player numbers is.

The fact is months ago, people were debating whether or not VII would even find a floor in terms of concurrent users to sink to. It seems to have found one. This is good news for VII (the alternative being an uninterrupted fall in concurrent users, which would be bad news). People are no longer debating this.

Similarly, there's been a lot of discussion whether or not user reviews would ever improve. They have been. This is far more clear in recent reviews vs. overall (on Steam), of course.

These are factual observations, not meant to rile anyone up or continue an endless argument. There's still a long way to go for VII to overtake V, nevermind VI.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

"Civ" vii 47 % positive

Anno 71%

Endless Legends 11 84%

Unfortunately for them their positive percentages hasn't translated to better player retention.

This is comparing Day 1 to 30 average peak concurrent players to Day 38 to 67 average peak concurrent players. It's a short time frame as Anno 117: Pax Romana has only been out for that long. All games from 2024 or 2025. The games chosen from 2024 were all nominated for Best Sim/Strategy Game at the 2024 Game Awards.

1. Football Manager 26 (25.5% loss, 68,818 to 51,301) *benefited from the Christmas period in its most recent figures, also had 10% sale
2. Age of Mythology: Retold (57.2% loss, 15,197 to 6,507)
3. Europa Universalis V (57.6% loss, 50,153 to 21,248) *benefited from the Christmas period in its most recent figures
4. Civilization VII (63.9% loss, 49,809 to 17,979)
5. Two Point Museum (64.9% loss, 11,279 to 3,954)
6. Jurassic World Evolution 3 (66.4% loss, 10,123 to 3,406)
7. Anno 117: Pax Romana (69.2% loss, 21,886 to 6,748) *benefited from the Christmas period in its most recent figures, also had 10% sale
8. Tempest Rising (74.3% loss, 4,910 to 1,261)
9. The Alters (79.9% loss, 6,163 to 1,241)
10. Endless Legend II (81.9% loss, 1,668 to 302)
11. Manor Lords (82.4% loss, 57,123 to 10,046)
12. Final Fantasy Tactics (82.5% loss, 10,517 to 1838)
13. Frostpunk 2 (85% loss, 10,728 to 1,609) *won Best Sim/Strategy Game at the 2024 Game Awards
14. Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess (86.3% loss, 797 to 109)

The worst rated on Steam out of these games is Football Manager 26 at 30.7% positive and yet it has the best player retention by a long way. Civilization VII is the most expensive on the list at $70, and had no sales within the first 67 days.

 

[Kwami]

Like I said. You can't really compare player numbers between Endless Legend 2, and Civ 7. Endless Legend 2 is an Early Access game, and has only been out for 4 months.
Also Anno 117 has only been out for 2 months, so its unfair to compare that to Civ 7 too.

How is it that you seem incapable of applying exactly this logic when comparing Civ VII against V and VI, which have been out far longer? It's truly amazing.

 

[uppi]

Well, Endless Legends 2 is an early access game, so that is probably why it doesn't have tons of players at this time.

Does it really matter how many players are playing?
Civ 7 is still 52% negative on reviews.

Does the review score really matter? I would argue people playing the game is a better indicator of success.

 

[lymond]

Moderator Action: Please discuss the topic and make your arguments. Do not discuss or attack each other, or temp thread bans may be issued

 

[kotpeter]

Unfortunately for them their positive percentages hasn't translated to better player retention.

This is comparing Day 1 to 30 average peak concurrent players to Day 38 to 67 average peak concurrent players. It's a short time frame as Anno 117: Pax Romana has only been out for that long. All games from 2024 or 2025. The games chosen from 2024 were all nominated for Best Sim/Strategy Game at the 2024 Game Awards.

1. Football Manager 26 (25.5% loss, 68,818 to 51,301) *benefited from the Christmas period in its most recent figures, also had 10% sale
2. Age of Mythology: Retold (57.2% loss, 15,197 to 6,507)
3. Europa Universalis V (57.6% loss, 50,153 to 21,248) *benefited from the Christmas period in its most recent figures
4. Civilization VII (63.9% loss, 49,809 to 17,979)
5. Two Point Museum (64.9% loss, 11,279 to 3,954)
6. Jurassic World Evolution 3 (66.4% loss, 10,123 to 3,406)
7. Anno 117: Pax Romana (69.2% loss, 21,886 to 6,748) *benefited from the Christmas period in its most recent figures, also had 10% sale
8. Tempest Rising (74.3% loss, 4,910 to 1,261)
9. The Alters (79.9% loss, 6,163 to 1,241)
10. Endless Legend II (81.9% loss, 1,668 to 302)
11. Manor Lords (82.4% loss, 57,123 to 10,046)
12. Final Fantasy Tactics (82.5% loss, 10,517 to 1838)
13. Frostpunk 2 (85% loss, 10,728 to 1,609) *won Best Sim/Strategy Game at the 2024 Game Awards
14. Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess (86.3% loss, 797 to 109)

The worst rated on Steam out of these games is Football Manager 26 at 30.7% positive and yet it has the best player retention by a long way. Civilization VII is the most expensive on the list at $70, and had no sales within the first 67 days.

I'm a little pedantic to say this, but maybe it'll be useful for everyone to understand.

One cannot see real retention by calendar date alone, because it always includes new and returning users under a single number. In order to calculate real retention, one needs cohort-level data, with cohort dimensions being at least install_date + days_since_install.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

I'm a little pedantic to say this, but maybe it'll be useful for everyone to understand.

One cannot see real retention by calendar date alone, because it always includes new and returning users under a single number. In order to calculate real retention, one needs cohort-level data, with cohort dimensions being at least install_date + days_since_install.

That's true but it's all we've got to measure player retention. It's still a good indicator.

 

[Leucarum]

We really don't have a good player retention figure for Civ7. Even the figures loosely being thrown around as proxies are messed up by Civ7's staggered launch. I think we just have to file it under "don't have the information to know."

 

[Siptah]

I don't think any comparison with Anno 117 makes sense tbh. There's zero reason to buy new full-priced Ubisoft games on Steam instead of from Ubisoft themselves, so I would assume that the majority of owners is non-Steam there. The Anno series in particular has a dark past on Steam, with Anno 1800 being released on that platform originally, but then pulled back for several years until it reappeared again with all DLC (which were previously not available on Steam) a year or so ago.

We really don't have a good player retention figure for Civ7. Even the figures loosely being thrown around as proxies are messed up by Civ7's staggered launch. I think we just have to file it under "don't have the information to know."

Average daily concurrent players since launch divided by number of owners is not that bad of an indicator for retention. But the number of total owners still has a huge error margin.

 

[Leucarum]

Average daily concurrent players since launch divided by number of owners is not that bad of an indicator for retention. But the number of total owners still has a huge error margin.

It's a best case scenario statistic which probably overestimates retention, we don't know by how much. As long as it's presented that way I think it's justifiable. But this isn't a thread for nuance.

And there's the question of console which is a completely black box to us.

 

[Kev1916]

And yet, more people are playing Civ VII then either of those

Mice and wheel.

There are considerably more people playing Civ V and VI than "civ" vii

 

[Kev1916]

Does the review score really matter? I would argue people playing the game is a better indicator of success.

Yep I would say it does.

There are considerably more people playing Civ V and VI than "civ" vii.

 

[Siddorm]

I am using this ranking by revenue (by Gamalytic) to showcase the point of this message.
I am excluding games priced at $0, because I am viewing that as a different market. I am noting the % review scores from top to bottom for the top 50:
97, 93, 86, 97, 68, 87, 83, 77, 92, 89, 94, 98, 90, 85, 86, 97, 46, 95, 77, 81, 88, 92, 98, 89, 77, 95, 88, 96, 89, 95, 88, 93, 96, 97, 94, 90, 92.
My point is that successful games generally have high review scores.
I realize that numbers can go up or down for various reasons, but Civ VII (for example) would be unlikely to be a big success if the review scores would continue to be in the 50+ range.

 

[kotpeter]

Yep I would say it does.

There are considerably more people playing Civ V and VI than "civ" vii.

I assume that the lowest price of the game is a more important factor in the number of players we see on charts.

Full edition of Civ 6 has been on sale for $11.50. Full edition of Civ 5 has been on sale for less than10$. And both of these games went on sale in a complete state, fully patched and loaded with content. I'm taking these numbers from steamdb using U.S. Dollars, and both games were even cheaper in several regions with large population (e.g. Brazil, China).

Full edition of Civ 7 has been on sale for around 80$ (without founder's cosmetics and including free DLC), and there hasn't even been a major expansion yet.

Again, we don't have enough data to confirm or deny my assumptions or anyone else's assumptions.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

I am using this ranking by revenue (by Gamalytic) to showcase the point of this message.
I am excluding games priced at $0, because I am viewing that as a different market. I am noting the % review scores from top to bottom for the top 50:
97, 93, 86, 97, 68, 87, 83, 77, 92, 89, 94, 98, 90, 85, 86, 97, 46, 95, 77, 81, 88, 92, 98, 89, 77, 95, 88, 96, 89, 95, 88, 93, 96, 97, 94, 90, 92.
My point is that successful games generally have high review scores.
I realize that numbers can go up or down for various reasons, but Civ VII (for example) would be unlikely to be a big success if the review scores would continue to be in the 50+ range.

It certainly needs to graduate into the 70s consistently at some point if it is to try and match the success of Civ VI.

I wonder how big the affect of the "one Civ" option will have on reviews. The highest weekly positive % we've seen was 76% during the Steam Award nomination week, or 68.9% following the 1.3 update. The highest 30 day positive % we've seen was 68.8% (including Steam Award nomination week), or 59% without it.

 

[Siddorm]

I wonder if the "Steam Awards reviews spike" sucks positive reviews into it from the future. To clarify: some people with positive sentiment that might otherwise submit a positive review in December or January, submit it in November instead.

 

[Kev1916]

I assume that the lowest price of the game is a more important factor in the number of players we see on charts.

Na it don't work like that .

 

[Gorbles]

Na it don't work like that .

What does it work like, then?

 

[itix]

I wonder if the "Steam Awards reviews spike" sucks positive reviews into it from the future. To clarify: some people with positive sentiment that might otherwise submit a positive review in December or January, submit it in November instead.

It might, but there was a free DLC that contributed to increased positivity.

In the long run it wont matter, because new owners review the game according to the current patch level. If the game is good, it is good. And vice versa.

 

[Smegger213]

For the first time in a good while, we have a week where we got more negative than positive reviews.
Week from 17th to 23rd January.
81 positive reviews.
93 negative reviews.
46.55% positive.
There were 4 days out of the 7 that had more negative reviews.

I wonder if its starting to trend downwards again?
Player peaks have dropped slightly too.