Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[kotpeter]

Best Comparison ?

Civ BE: 4.2K
Civ 7: 0.77K

Same problem with numbers tbh

 

[Core Imposter]

I assume this is lifetime statistics? If so, could you please divide each number by the number of months since each game's release to get numbers we could reasonably compare?

Nice try. No cigar. What is this? Less than 10 posts a day? Five?

Roughly 5 a day so to catch Civ 4 you'd need 100,000 days or right at 274 years. Assuming the current torrid pace of posting doesn't slow down.

 

[Nikolai II]

I assume this is lifetime statistics? If so, could you please divide each number by the number of months since each game's release to get numbers we could reasonably compare?

Civ6 has 22.1K posts. Released IIRC October 2016? So two months' shy of 9 years. 9x12=108-2=106 months. 22.1K/106 months=208.5 posts per month. Civ7 released ca 6 months ago. 208.5x6=1251. So Civ6 is a bit shy of double the amount of Civ7 so far.

 

[kotpeter]

Civ6 has 22.1K posts. Released IIRC October 2016? So two months' shy of 9 years. 9x12=108-2=106 months. 22.1K/106 months=208.5 posts per month. Civ7 released ca 6 months ago. 208.5x6=1251. So Civ6 is a bit shy of double the amount of Civ7 so far.

Thank you. This looks much more reasonable than comparing number of posts about a 9 yo game vs a 6 months old game.

Civ 7 has 60% of Civ 6's average number of posts per month, which is much better than what someone tried to prove.

 

[Kwami]

I dont think it's fair to equate criticism with toxicity. Just because you like the game does not mean others' negative opinions are invalid.

It's not just criticism, though. Even those of us that like the game have criticized the things that we don't like. That's all good.

It's when people come into a thread and start writing stuff like, "Still no classic mode? No thanks!" when the thread has nothing to do with that. Or when people start calling the developers stupid or lazy. Stuff like that just really ruins the mood.

 

[Skojardu]

I agree here. I have seen repeated posts of doom and gloom, as if people as basking on this game's failure. Now I see why potato stopped for a while because the repeated toxicity is tiring. Maybe I just have to play instead of reading the forums. (Got 1000 hours and more now for Civ VII)

Sonic, you need to tell us why the game has hooked you for 1,000 hours! I haven't yet bought it, so why should I? Buy, sell (ie, avoid), or hold (my current move)?

 

[firadin]

Nice try. No cigar. What is this? Less than 10 posts a day? Five?

Roughly 5 a day so to catch Civ 4 you'd need 100,000 days or right at 274 years. Assuming the current torrid pace of posting doesn't slow down.

This analysis relies on the assumption that strategy posts are a strong proxy for game popularity (or even playtime). With the rise of other forums (Reddit) and YouTube/twitch strategy videos, the need for strategy guides has definitely shrunk significantly even in the last decade. You yourself pointed out that Civ6 has 22k posts while Civ5 has 150k posts. Civ5 has been out less than twice as long as Civ6? By that metric (posts per year), Civ6 would be something like a fifth as popular as Civ5 but that's obviously untrue.

 

[Core Imposter]

This analysis relies on the assumption that strategy posts are a strong proxy for game popularity (or even playtime). With the rise of other forums (Reddit) and YouTube/twitch strategy videos, the need for strategy guides has definitely shrunk significantly even in the last decade. You yourself pointed out that Civ6 has 22k posts while Civ5 has 150k posts. Civ5 has been out less than twice as long as Civ6? By that metric (posts per year), Civ6 would be something like a fifth as popular as Civ5 but that's obviously untrue.

I actually said nothing about popularity. I was just pointing out some evidence that seems to point to the declining strategic depth of the more recent games in the Civ series. YMMV.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

This forum has a much smaller share of Civ related discussion than in the past too, so it's a poor metric for any real comparison across the years between games.

There's definitely better ways to have this discussion than to try and score points by showing a low number without sufficient context.

I don't think it's reasonable to extrapolate strategic depth from level of discussion on a sub forum here either. I can see there is still strategy in the game, board gamey and not my cup of tea as it might be, and it's clearly still a 4X. The problems seem to be that artificial resets that have reset strategy at age transition which causes game breaking frustration, and also the poor UI masking information that enables players to play strategically. Then on top of that there's the feeling of the game with Civ switching and whether it's kept to the 33:33:33 rule which is much more subjective and unrelated to strategy.

 

[itix]

It seems that hard work paid off. Steam sales and/or major patches, perhaps combined with summer vacations, helped to halt the steep decline in player count.

It will be interesting to see if they managed to turn the tide permanently.

Civ V was mentioned again. I read a post-mortem article a while ago, and it seems Civ 5 launch had some similarities to Civ 7. It was rushed out in an unfinished state, and the MP part was particularly messy. The late game was unbalanced and poorly tested, and the morale plummeted due to layoffs.

But what is different is that Civ 5 had better player count/retention than Civ 7. Despite launch issues, layoffs and all, it did fairly well.

 

[kotpeter]

It seems that hard work paid off. Steam sales and/or major patches, perhaps combined with summer vacations, helped to halt the steep decline in player count.
View attachment 739187
It will be interesting to see if they managed to turn the tide permanently.

Civ V was mentioned again. I read a post-mortem article a while ago, and it seems Civ 5 launch had some similarities to Civ 7. It was rushed out in an unfinished state, and the MP part was particularly messy. The late game was unbalanced and poorly tested, and the morale plummeted due to layoffs.

But what is different is that Civ 5 had better player count/retention than Civ 7. Despite launch issues, layoffs and all, it did fairly well.

View attachment 739188

Did Civ 5 have any decent competitors back then? Aside from Civ 4 obviously

 

[itix]

Nope. According to AI, Victoria II and Total War were its competitors. It doesn't sound like there was competition at all.

 

[GeneralZift]

Honestly?

I don't post here much because you all have made this such a negative place with all of the doom posts. It's not worth making a new thread to talk about something fun when I know that it's going to be invaded by the same dozen or so accounts that post the same complaints in nearly every thread.

Who is out there invading the regular threads with negativity? No one that I see. If they do they should get warned for going off-topic.
The people with constructive criticism stick to the threads about the criticism, at least, I do and see many others do the same.

The slow pace of posting in Civ7 forums is because, obviously, Civ7 has had an awful opening, and players numbers are low, player reviews are low and veterans don't particularly like the game. (CivFanatics is mostly veterans)
So in contrast you might see more Civ7 on Reddit.

Maybe some are reading critique threads or reviews or videos and perhaps getting dissuaded or bored and then simply not posting.

I'm not sure why there needs to be an outsourcing of blame on why there's not posts on an unpopular game. Occam's razor?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It seems that hard work paid off. Steam sales and/or major patches, perhaps combined with summer vacations, helped to halt the steep decline in player count.
View attachment 739187
It will be interesting to see if they managed to turn the tide permanently.

Civ V was mentioned again. I read a post-mortem article a while ago, and it seems Civ 5 launch had some similarities to Civ 7. It was rushed out in an unfinished state, and the MP part was particularly messy. The late game was unbalanced and poorly tested, and the morale plummeted due to layoffs.

But what is different is that Civ 5 had better player count/retention than Civ 7. Despite launch issues, layoffs and all, it did fairly well.

View attachment 739188

It's even better by the average player metric, with the average number of players increasing 2.8% for July over June. So this is some evidence that Civ 7 is starting to find its player base:

Spoiler Monthly players to July 2025 showing average number of players :

 

[Leucarum]

When I first heard about the civ switching I was terrified, when I first switch about the radically different eras I was excited.

I felt the same. My heart sank a little when they announced Civ switching was in. The eras though seemed pretty exciting. I think the trouble is that an era system is only as good as its weakest link... The eras can't be any better than the modern era.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Discussions threads that are not about system specific changes dont get this kind of posts. Go to all the civ discussions or any of those thread and you will not see people talking about age transitions and civ switrching

So no, i dont see complaints in every thread, i see complaints in the threads made for those stuff

What i do see is that those other threads, that get no complaints, also get very few replies (and i think its because there arebnt manty people playing), but they dont get negativity in them

If people are barging into specific threads about strategy to complain about civ switching or whatever, I’m sure that moderator intervention would be swift.

I agree here. I have seen repeated posts of doom and gloom, as if people as basking on this game's failure. Now I see why potato stopped for a while because the repeated toxicity is tiring. Maybe I just have to play instead of reading the forums. (Got 1000 hours and more now for Civ VII)

I highly doubt that a streamer is going to abandon an otherwise popular and succesfull game because of alleged doom posting on some random forum.

They WILL bail on a game that is a failure with no audience, or if playing the game itself is zero fun.

One measure, though, is that the "Strategy and Tips" sub-forum, where doom-posters don't doom-post, has at present two pages of threads. Civ VI had two pages of threads within a week of release.

I don't think it's the doom-posters who are the primary cause for the lack of discussion of Civ 7.

“Am I so out of touch? No, clearly it is the children who are wrong”

 

[Bug Repellent]

It's even better by the average player metric, with the average number of players increasing 2.8% for July over June. So this is some evidence that Civ 7 is starting to find its player base:

Well, Civ6's average player metric was up 8.3% in July 2025, vs. Civ7's +2.8%. If anything, Civ7 is still losing ground to Civ6. Even with the 1.2.3 update. But it's good that at least Civ7 posted a small bump in player count.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Well, Civ6's average player metric was up 8.3% in July 2025, vs. Civ7's +2.8%. If anything, Civ7 is still losing ground to Civ6. Even with the 1.2.3 update. But it's good that at least Civ7 posted a small bump in player count.

Ya we don’t need to “find the player base”. We have and it’s not good. We need to win back those 6 numbers.

The reason I am constantly playing wack a mole with attempts to hide or deflect from what is clearly the issue here, is not because I want 7 to fail. If I did I could have bowed out already.

It’s because the issue needs to be confronted and dealt with, and that is that civ switching and era resets clearly are not what the market wants in this case.

 

[Crashdummy]

I think both of the key points that broke Civ 7 have different issues.

Civ switching in particular goes against the very core of Civilization, which is to build a Civilization to stand the test of time. In my opinion, it will never work in Civilization, maybe in another IP

Age transitions is not of my liking, because i prefer smoooth and fluid gameplay with as few interruptions as possible, but there might be an implementation that can work. It is definitely not the current one, and if any implementation works, i dont see it being similar to the current one

 

[socratic]

Strategy posts (messages):

Civ 3: 112.5K
Civ 4: 531.8K
Civ 5 147.8K
Civ BE: 4.2K
Civ 6: 22.1K
Civ 7: 0.77K

There it is. Only 772 posts. There simply isn't that much to talk about strategy wise. And you can see why folks like me bemoan the evolution of Civ away from strategy to whatever it is now.

And I am not even talking about views. There is a Civ7 strategy thread with 7K views. But compare that to the Civ 4 Realism Invictus mod thread. It is listed with three million views.

Maybe someday Firaxis will try to make a strategy game again.

As someone who’s dabbled in the Civ 6 Multiplayer scene, the truth is Civ 7 lacks a lot of mechanic nuance between players that Civ 6 has and makes for a flatter strategic gameplay. There’s this video by Herson that explains it a lot better than I can: