Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Leucarum]

In addition to that: its 100+ turns of antiquity! In civ VI, that's when you enter the atomic age...

I hadn't thought of it in that light, but yeah, Civ7 does do a good job of extending the first fun part of a Civ game into a full 1/3, even if it fails to make the other parts any better...

 

[queenpea]

As a culture player who finds culture in all ages in VII to be lacking any real depth, the culture game in Antiquity is at least better than in the other ages.

I still don’t think it’s great—I don’t feel a lot of satisfaction when you can slap wonders down every five turns just for bonus points.

I would love for religion to play a role in Antiquity—but not in the way it’s introduced in Exploration with a focus on missionary spam and conversion.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Wow another blast of fog and chaff to make us really wonder if the almost universally disliked game might actually be really loved by a lot of people. This is just a sincere opinion, not someone's weird discursive agenda of some kind.

"Almost universally disliked" at 47% positive. 49% positive for reviews with over 1 hour playtime. 51% positive for reviews with over 2 hour playtime. "Universally disliked". Universally means by everyone. Civ VII is nowhere close to being universally disliked.

 

[Kwami]

"Almost universally disliked" at 47% positive. 49% positive for reviews with over 1 hour playtime. 51% positive for reviews with over 2 hour playtime. "Universally disliked". Universally means by everyone. Civ VII is nowhere close to being universally disliked.

I made the same argument a while back and the response was some absurd nonsense about how all of the other people who don't like the game didn't buy it and didn't leave a review.

Some of the posters here don't seem to understand that their opinions aren't universal and that a lot of players actually like this game, even if we think that it could be improved in some ways.

 

[Kev1916]

"Almost universally disliked" at 47% positive. 49% positive for reviews with over 1 hour playtime. 51% positive for reviews with over 2 hour playtime. "Universally disliked". Universally means by everyone. Civ VII is nowhere close to being universally disliked.

Not to burst your rant but quote was "Almost ..

Al-most - Not quite and recent review are 59% Negative

 

[Leucarum]

What would Civ Fanatics be without a heavy dose of hyperbole?

 

[ColtSeavers]

I made the same argument a while back and the response was some absurd nonsense about how all of the other people who don't like the game didn't buy it and didn't leave a review.

That's not "absurd nonsense", but just pure logic!

 

[The Civs 6]

Civ switching is something you hate from the moment it is announced. Ages are something you need to try out before you hate. The people who don't like civ switching never bought the game. It makes sense if the people who are reviewing were all open to civ switching.

For many (like myself), i hate them both. I bought the game, but I'm sure many who view it the same way as myself never bought it and thus never had the chance to review it.

This is the first Civ product of any kind for PC (other than the civ 2 expansions and Alpha Centauri, which I didn't know existed before they became freeware) that I did not purchase. I knew from the trailer it would be a disaster.

 

[Gorbles]

Not to burst your rant but quote was "Almost ..

Al-most - Not quite and recent review are 59% Negative

What does "almost universally" mean then? Does it mean "most"? Or does it mean "a majority"?

Surely, you'd think it was closer to "universally" than anything else. Because it's almost universally. Just like I'm almost grinding my teeth at how people will rely on exaggeration when it suits them, and finger wag the slightest hint of inaccuracy as soon as it doesn't. I'm not quite grinding my teeth. But almost!

(don't grind your teeth folks - I was making a joke!)

 

[GeneralZift]

Almost universally is a bit hyperbole but it's definitely a majority. In fact, a lot of games can get away with a lot of dislike and still have "Very Positive" on Steam.

But I don't see what's wrong with the argument that people who don't buy the game don't leave a review. I mean it's common sense. I don't like the game, I didn't buy it, so is my opinion therefore invalid in your reasoning because it's not a review on Steam?

You can extrapolate that, to what extent is obviously unknown, but it's still a factor. If it's just below 50/50 in positivity for reviewers then with the players who don't buy, it'll swing even lower, I think that's also just common sense.

The only remaining group is the people who like the game but don't buy it. For them it's most likely to be a pricing issue, otherwise they would buy the game. Fair assessment?

 

[Siddorm]

If I want to know which games are liked the most, I look at the player counts. Everyone's time is precious, so if people are spending some of their valuable time playing a game then that speaks volumes.

 

[Gori the Grey]

"Almost universally" should be like 95%, imho. So, no, Civ 7 isn't "almost universally" disliked.

But 50% or under is no good sign. Some months back someone posted a bit from a community rep of a different franchise who was more forthcoming on such matters, and they said anything less than, like, 80% was concerning to that company, and they wanted to get on fixing it tout de suite.

Don't know how I'd hunt it down to repost (plus check my memory of the 80% value). Can't remember any of the specifics to use as a search term.

 

[Kev1916]

What does "almost universally" mean then? Does it mean "most"? Or does it mean "a majority"?

Surely, you'd think it was closer to "universally" than anything else. Because it's almost universally. Just like I'm almost grinding my teeth at how people will rely on exaggeration when it suits them, and finger wag the slightest hint of inaccuracy as soon as it doesn't. I'm not quite grinding my teeth. But almost!

(don't grind your teeth folks - I was making a joke!)

Since I never made the original post , you best ask the poster .

Bottom line re the most or majority , unlike the distortion of post I replied to, the current reviews are 59 % negative .

 

[Siddorm]

When I read "almost universally disliked", I was thinking that it could not mean disliked by almost everyone because that would be an exaggeration, and that it perhaps meant "disliked by almost every demographic" or something like that.

 

[Kwami]

Almost universally is a bit hyperbole but it's definitely a majority.

It's barely a majority if we go by reviews.

But I don't see what's wrong with the argument that people who don't buy the game don't leave a review. I mean it's common sense. I don't like the game, I didn't buy it, so is my opinion therefore invalid in your reasoning because it's not a review on Steam?

You can extrapolate that, to what extent is obviously unknown, but it's still a factor. If it's just below 50/50 in positivity for reviewers then with the players who don't buy, it'll swing even lower, I think that's also just common sense.

The only remaining group is the people who like the game but don't buy it. For them it's most likely to be a pricing issue, otherwise they would buy the game. Fair assessment?

There are all sorts of reasons to not buy a game. Cost is a big one. I suspect that a large population of potential players won't buy the game until it's on sale for a much lower price. Others will wait until they can buy a definitive edition with the DLC and expansions included. Others are busy with other games and just haven't found time for this one yet. And sure, some people won't buy the game at all because they just don't like what they've seen in reviews or wherever they get their "news". You have no way of knowing how large any of those groups is and therefore no way of knowing how many of them don't like the game.

Also, the overwhelming majority of people who did buy the game haven't left a review. You have no way of knowing how many of those players don't like the game.

Anyway, reviews have rebounded since their low and the last 30 days show 41% positive and "mixed" again, as predicted.

 

[GeneralZift]

It's barely a majority if we go by reviews.


There are all sorts of reasons to not buy a game. Cost is a big one. I suspect that a large population of potential players won't buy the game until it's on sale for a much lower price. Others will wait until they can buy a definitive edition with the DLC and expansions included. Others are busy with other games and just haven't found time for this one yet. And sure, some people won't buy the game at all because they just don't like what they've seen in reviews or wherever they get their "news". You have no way of knowing how large any of those groups is and therefore no way of knowing how many of them don't like the game.

Also, the overwhelming majority of people who did buy the game haven't left a review. You have no way of knowing how many of those players don't like the game.

Anyway, reviews have rebounded since their low and the last 30 days show 41% positive and "mixed" again, as predicted.

I mean you can sugarcoat it or label it whatever way you like, but the pure fact of the matter is that the game is unpopular.
There is no point in nitpicking the terminology, that's like detracting from the main point of the conversation.
I thought we all collectively agreed that the game was unpopular maybe 200 pages back.

Like even if we ignore all other factors, 'Mixed' is not good by Steam standards. 41% positive is quite poor. That's barely a passing mark on an exam.
The peak was on the day of release, which was 51%. That's still quite poor.

The main point of the thread was to discuss how the reception could be improved, right? Denying that the reception is bad, is pointless.
I'm not trying to hate FYI, I'm just saying that the discussion is best lead by pursuing ways to improve the reception.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Not to burst your rant but quote was "Almost ..

Al-most - Not quite and recent review are 59% Negative

Almost universally means by almost everyone. It isn't disliked by "almost" everyone. Very very far from it.

Almost universally is a bit hyperbole but it's definitely a majority. In fact, a lot of games can get away with a lot of dislike and still have "Very Positive" on Steam.

But I don't see what's wrong with the argument that people who don't buy the game don't leave a review. I mean it's common sense. I don't like the game, I didn't buy it, so is my opinion therefore invalid in your reasoning because it's not a review on Steam?

You can extrapolate that, to what extent is obviously unknown, but it's still a factor. If it's just below 50/50 in positivity for reviewers then with the players who don't buy, it'll swing even lower, I think that's also just common sense.

The only remaining group is the people who like the game but don't buy it. For them it's most likely to be a pricing issue, otherwise they would buy the game. Fair assessment?

So everyone who doesn't buy a game dislikes it and if they bought it they would leave a negative review? So the ~5-10m people who bought Civ VI but didn't buy Civ V must dislike it right? So the 99.9% of people who didn't buy my keyboard and bought a different keyboard must dislike my keyboard? Everyone who watched or didn't watch Oppenheimer and didn't rate it on IMDB must dislike it? Not to be rude, but this whole argument about imaginary reviews from people who haven't bought the game is stupid.

 

[GeneralZift]

So everyone who doesn't buy a game dislikes it and if they bought it they would leave a negative review? So the ~5-10m people who bought Civ VI but didn't buy Civ V must dislike it right? So the 99.9% of people who didn't buy my keyboard and bought a different keyboard must dislike my keyboard? Everyone who watched or didn't watch Oppenheimer and didn't rate it on IMDB must dislike it? Not to be rude, but this whole argument about imaginary reviews from people who haven't bought the game is stupid.

This is just a strawman argument. If you actually read what I wrote you can see that I reference both people who would like the game but don't buy it, and the people wouldn't like the game and don't buy it.
Both of these people have to logically exist, as for what extent they represent is unknown, which I also said.

The likelihood that people are off-put by a game they don't like so much as to not buy it, is higher than the likelihood that a person is avoiding buying a game despite liking it.
That's only my opinion, because if you're interested by the mechanics and the ideas, you'd give it a try, maybe give it a positive or negative review.
If you're not interested at all, then the probability you will spend your hard-earned cash on it is low, and so you leave no reviews at all, which makes you invisible to Steam reviews.

And I never said there are imaginary reviews, this is just something you made up.
Despite how much you fight it, the reviews are still negative. Congratulations if you like the game, but a lot of others don't. Perhaps you have suggestions?

 

[IntelligentDisk]

But I don't see what's wrong with the argument that people who don't buy the game don't leave a review. I mean it's common sense. I don't like the game, I didn't buy it, so is my opinion therefore invalid in your reasoning because it's not a review on Steam?

In the context of Steam reviews, yes, your opinion is invalid and irrelevant because you've never bought the game on Steam, never played the game on Steam and never left a review for it on Steam. We're talking specifically about Steam reviews.

This is just a strawman argument. If you actually read what I wrote you can see that I reference both people who would like the game but don't buy it, and the people wouldn't like the game and don't buy it.
Both of these people have to logically exist, as for what extent they represent is unknown, which I also said.

The likelihood that people are off-put by a game they don't like so much as to not buy it, is higher than the likelihood that a person is avoiding buying a game despite liking it.
That's only my opinion, because if you're interested by the mechanics and the ideas, you'd give it a try, maybe give it a positive or negative review.
If you're not interested at all, then the probability you will spend your hard-earned cash on it is low, and so you leave no reviews at all, which makes you invisible to Steam reviews.

And I never said there are imaginary reviews, this is just something you made up.
Despite how much you fight it, the reviews are still negative. Congratulations if you like the game, but a lot of others don't. Perhaps you have suggestions?

I just don't understand the point of pointing out non-existent Steam reviews from people who haven't played the game. I've never seen this brought up for a game before and it's impossible to measure. Bringing it up in an attempt to justify the "almost universally disliked" statement is pointless. Even with all the non-existent negative Steam reviews the game still wouldn't be "almost universally disliked". I said imaginary reviews because you're using non-existent reviews to defend the "almost universally disliked" claim.

There are a few reasons why someone might "like" Civ VII and haven't bought it on Steam:

1. Too expensive
2. The awareness of the "Civ Cycle"
3. Too busy either playing other games / too busy in life
4. Not a fan of the DLC strategy
5. Their current PC doesn't meet recommended or minimum specs
6. Reviews concern them

By Steams own definition, the reviews aren't negative, they're mixed. 47% overall, 49% if you've played over 1 hour, 51% if you've played over 2 hours. Assuming the game has 1m sales on Steam, but just 46k reviews, we can assume that less than 5% of Steam players have left a review for VII. We don't know what the other 95% of VII players think.

 

[Bug Repellent]

It's somewhat puzzling to me why some have a hard time accepting Civ7 is a flop, when there's plenty of hard evidence for this assertion. From layoffs at Firaxis at a time when they're working around the clock to turn around the game's fortunes, to "mixed" reviews, to very poor community engagement. I mean... It's Friday afternoon in the Americas and Friday evening in Europe. You know how many streams/views Civ7 has on Twitch at the moment? Four (4) streams and two (2) viewers. Three of the four streams are streaming to nobody. The lucky fourth one has 2 viewers. On Youtube, Ursa Ryan's Civ7 videos only get 10-13k views. His Civ6 videos? Over 40k.

Yes, Civ7 has a small following and that's great. But the key word here is "small". Far too small to make the game economically viable long term. The game is selling far too few copies (3.3k/week according to Gamalytic) to be profitable and the future for DLC revenues is bleak. For the good of the franchise, Firaxis should take the L and start working on Civ8 in my opinion. If they insist in pushing this poorly received installment with its murky at best reputation for the next few years through its planned life cycle, they will endanger the IP itself and leave themselves vulnerable to competitors. Some things you just can't fix.