Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[trev1972]

Here is the summary for the last month. The average player count had a large drop. With the latest update, I expect the player count to peak at 11,000 again on the weekend.
View attachment 743944

Do people think it will take an expansion to push civ 7 numbers past 5?
Do you think it will ever pass civ 6 player numbers?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Do people think it will take an expansion to push civ 7 numbers past 5?
Do you think it will ever pass civ 6 player numbers?

1. It will take time and expansion
2. Yes, most likely it will. Civilization games are known for their longevity, but eventually new game overshadow old ones

 

[itix]

Do people think it will take an expansion to push civ 7 numbers past 5?
Do you think it will ever pass civ 6 player numbers?

Past civ 5? Probably yes. Past civ 6? Probably not. Civ 6 still looks decent and offers better replayability, but essentially is outselling Civ 7 in terms of copies sold. In the last 7 days, Civ 7 sold 8k copies while Civ 6 sold 45k copies..

 

[Kev1916]

Do people think it will take an expansion to push civ 7 numbers past 5?
Do you think it will ever pass civ 6 player numbers?

No the next expansion will be the last
No chance

 

[Siddorm]

I imagine that the (Steam reviews) sentiment is one of their main concerns.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

did it not take brave new world expansion ( 2nd expansion ) for civ5 to overtake player numbers for civ4. similar for civ6 to overtake civ5

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

I imagine that the (Steam reviews) sentiment is one of their main concerns.

that statement is true for smaller studios and less known IPs since the game is recommended to visitors based on that stat. civilization series will be front and center in the shop and recommendations regardless of reviews

 

[Pfeffersack]

did it not take brave new world expansion ( 2nd expansion ) for civ5 to overtake player numbers for civ4. similar for civ6 to overtake civ5

Yes, but I'm not sure if the condition of Civ4 and Civ5 before those 2nd expansion are comparable to the problems Civ7 has currently. Don't get me wrong - I'm saying it is impossible: Imagine Civ7 gets a "classic mode", religion sees a rework, efforts to balancing/UI/AI continue, the 3rd age gets love respectively a 4th gets added (including e.g. stuff like canals, dams, enviroment impact)...I'm not ruling out that a Civ7 reworked that way could still suceed and overtake Civ6 one day. However, the question is if we will get there, as the way is in my perception longer and rockier for Civ7 compared to what Civ4 or 5 had to do.

 

[itix]

 

[stealth_nsk]

View attachment 744054

I really like this chart, because there's one little detail. Civ7 had record presale, so it had more owners at launch than Civ5 or Civ6.

 

[itix]

I really like this chart, because there's one little detail. Civ7 had record presale, so it had more owners at launch than Civ5 or Civ6.

Civ 6 peaked at 160k concurrent players 2 days after release, while Civ 7 in EA peaked at 80k concurrent players.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Civ 6 peaked at 160k concurrent players 2 days after release, while Civ 7 in EA peaked at 80k concurrent players.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. What do you think about the situation where game having more owners lauched with two time less concurrent players?

 

[itix]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. What do you think about the situation where game having more owners lauched with two time less concurrent players?

It means that after 2 days of the release, Civ 6 had sold more copies than Civ 7, including pre-orders.

 

[Doratov]

Civ 7 had a simultaneous release on these platforms:

Windows
macOS
Linux
Nintendo Switch
PlayStation 4
PlayStation 5
Xbox One
Xbox Series X/S

There are a lot of data people here are not privy to. Maybe the Steam numbers are fine, factoring in all those platforms. It also had a Switch 2 edition launched since.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It means that after 2 days of the release, Civ 6 had sold more copies than Civ 7, including pre-orders.

I respect your confidence. Not a single doubt that simultaneous player number could be a junk metric with weak correlation to any meaningful metrics?

Just some things:
1. The reason why Civ6 peaked on day 2 and not day 1 is because it was released on midnight in US, so US players starting playing it on release are actually counted in the second day
2. Civ6 really had good post-release sales, but not on the first day. It took a bit of time for social media to reflect on pretty good launch state

 

[stealth_nsk]

There are a lot of data people here are not privy to. Maybe the Steam numbers are fine, factoring in all those platforms. It also had a Switch 2 edition launched since.

That's one of the factors why simultaneous player number isn't representative for comparison between Civ7 and earlier games, but not the only one. Polls here and on Reddit show that about 85% play the game of Steam. Sure, the selection is really small and hardly representative, because both communities mostly consist of old time Civ players and both communities use English language. Still, I think it would be safe to say that the majority of Civ7 players use Steam.

 

[itix]

I respect your confidence. Not a single doubt that simultaneous player number could be a junk metric with weak correlation to any meaningful metrics?

It is not a junk metric. Scale it with the fact that every year, Steam has more and more users.

In fact, we can suspect that the franchise has been in decline since Civ V. This is because Civ 5 vs. Civ 6 player counts were nearly on par for two years, but Steam was less popular when Civ 5 was released. New games from Firaxis have been less frequent; their performance has been occasionally abysmal (Midnight Suns) and once popular franchises like X-COM are now in limbo.

I still have to say that current concurrent player counts are okay for Civ 7. It could be better, but it is not Civ 7 having the trouble. Firaxis is having trouble and it has been so for a long time.

Just some things:
1. The reason why Civ6 peaked on day 2 and not day 1 is because it was released on midnight in US, so US players starting playing it on release are actually counted in the second day

Does it matter?

2. Civ6 really had good post-release sales, but not on the first day. It took a bit of time for social media to reflect on pretty good launch state

What we dont know is how well Civ 6 did with pre-orders. By preordering, you unlocked Aztec civ 90 days early.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It is not a junk metric. Scale it with the fact that every year, Steam has more and more users.

In fact, we can suspect that the franchise has been in decline since Civ V. This is because Civ 5 vs. Civ 6 player counts were nearly on par for two years, but Steam was less popular when Civ 5 was released. New games from Firaxis have been less frequent; their performance has been occasionally abysmal (Midnight Suns) and once popular franchises like X-COM are now in limbo.

I still have to say that current concurrent player counts are okay for Civ 7. It could be better, but it is not Civ 7 having the trouble. Firaxis is having trouble and it has been so for a long time.

The thing is - I'm not defending the position of whether Civ7 is doing fine or not. I promote healthy skepticism about the data we have. Basing any significant conclusions on a metric which was designed to measure multiplayer health, is not great.

Regarding the simultaneous player number metric. We know for sure is that Civ6 did really well post launch, reaching 1M copies very fast, but this fact has zero reflection on the graph. It has the same drop curve as Civ7 which presumable had bad post-launch sales.

I understand the desire to use it because it's the only freely available metric we have, but it doesn't have significant correlation with any commercially valuable metrics like sales (and that's why it's freely available, BTW).

Does it matter?

Well, you pointed out that Civ6 peaked on second day instead of the first and that's the primary explanation.

What we dont know is how well Civ 6 did with pre-orders. By preordering, you unlocked Aztec civ 90 days early.

We know that it did worse by Civ7. Because Civ7 did better.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The thing is - I'm not defending the position of whether Civ7 is doing fine or not. I promote healthy skepticism about the data we have. Basing any significant conclusions on a metric which was designed to measure multiplayer health, is not great.

Regarding the simultaneous player number metric. We know for sure is that Civ6 did really well post launch, reaching 1M copies very fast, but this fact has zero reflection on the graph. It has the same drop curve as Civ7 which presumable had bad post-launch sales.

I understand the desire to use it because it's the only freely available metric we have, but it doesn't have significant correlation with any commercially valuable metrics like sales (and that's why it's freely available, BTW).


Well, you pointed out that Civ6 peaked on second day instead of the first and that's the primary explanation.


We know that it did worse by Civ7. Because Civ7 did better.

How many preorders did Civ6 do? Or is this info we don’t have?

 

[stealth_nsk]

How many preorders did Civ6 do? Or is this info we don’t have?

We don't have this info.