Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gorbles]

You are really not seeing anything to discount September as an outlier?

Its the ONLY month in the last 4 that had no patch, and the drop is caused because of that. Its clearly an outlier and thats why you cant use it as benmchmark, comparing all the other months that share similar variables and context

Of course getting more data in the future will be better to get a pattern, but such pattern will come from comparisons with July and August, not with September

1.2.4 patch 1 was at the end of August (the 27th). Similar to 1.2.5 landing on September 30th.

August did have two patches, of course, so the gap throughout September could be significant. But 1.2.5 was also a correspondingly large patch (and included DLC content). Plus the resumption of academic studies across most / all Western countries (if not more). All factors.

So no, I see nothing to discount September. I see factors we can suggest (which may or may not be relevant, I don't know for sure of course), but I see nothing to rule it out.

If "the game needs patches to sustain interest" is the lesson September is telling us, that's not going to be good as the patch cadences settles into a more typical post-release schedule (which typically isn't multiple times per month, for any game excepting live service and / or freemium titles).

Steam DB discards data after few months, keeping only peak/average/dunno data per day.

The snapshots are monthly, which is why the graph pre-July is so smooth. It's literally one datapoint on the 13th of every month or something

 

[Siddorm]

To what extent does the fact that there were 5 weekends in August but 4 weekends in September affect the monthly averages comparison?

 

[itix]

The snapshots are monthly, which is why the graph pre-July is so smooth. It's literally one datapoint on the 13th of every month or something

Oh, I didnt realize you were referring to https://steamcharts.com/app/1295660 while I was thinking https://steamdb.info/app/1295660/charts/

 

[Crashdummy]

Yeah, the September Patch was like... one week later than the ones of the previous months, that changes everything.

It does, when it means September has no weekend with a recent patch

And the first weekend after patch is when the peak happens

So yeah, it is a big change

 

[Crashdummy]

1.2.4 patch 1 was at the end of August (the 27th). Similar to 1.2.5 landing on September 30th.

Yes, and the first weekend after the August patch was still in August, while the first weekend after the September patch was in October

September had no weekend with a recent patch

And you still see nothing to discount September... i dont know what to say to you if you dont

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, and the first weekend after the August patch was still in August, while the first weekend after the September patch was in October

September had no weekend with a recent patch

And you still see nothing to discount September... i dont know what to say to you if you dont

Unless you're suggesting that one weekend in August was enough to distort the results for the entire month, and this had zero subsequent impact on September numbers . . . I don't really know what you're arguing. It seems you're taking any reason you can to try and diminish any alleged impact 1.2.5 had on player activity. Not really much I can do to shift the needle, there

 

[Crashdummy]

Unless you're suggesting that one weekend in August was enough to distort the results for the entire month, and this had zero subsequent impact on September numbers . . . I don't really know what you're arguing. It seems you're taking any reason you can to try and diminish any alleged impact 1.2.5 had on player activity. Not really much I can do to shift the needle, there

August (and July) were between two patches. August numbers started high because of a recent July patch that was steaming off slowly, and then got the August patch that reignigted numbers, so its not only the weekend with peak numbers that got the average up, but the fact that when the numbers were dropping, the next patch was announced and publshed. The same with June

September not only did not have a patch to increase its peak numbers, but also did not have anything to stop the decline

Therefore, September had lower peak numbers, but also lower minimum numbers, and yes, that is what made the average lower, thats how average works

What i am arguing is that September had a number of events missing that the other months had, and those are the reason for the unique lower numbers, not only compared to October (so no, its not about the new patch) but to any other point in Civ VII history

July and August show what months with patches were stabilized on, and those (two consecutive months with patches with similar numbers) should be the benchmark to compare other months with patches with. There is a reason why September had a 17%-18% drop in average numbers from BOTH previous months

 

[Gorbles]

August (and July) were between two patches. August numbers started high because of a recent July patch that was steaming off slowly, and then got the August patch that reignigted numbers, so its not only the weekend with peak numbers that got the average up, but the fact that when the numbers were dropping, the next patch was announced and publshed. The same with June

September not only did not have a patch to increase its peak numbers, but also did not have anything to stop the decline

Therefore, September had lower peak numbers, but also lower minimum numbers, and yes, that is what made the average lower, thats how average works

What i am arguing is that September had a number of events missing that the other months had, and those are the reason for the unique lower numbers, not only compared to October (so no, its not about the new patch) but to any other point in Civ VII history

July and August show what months with patches were stabilized on, and those (two consecutive months with patches with similar numbers) should be the benchmark to compare other months with patches with. There is a reason why September had a 17%-18% drop in average numbers from BOTH previous months

And I'm arguing that October was higher than July or August, and eclipsed the losses of September. You can't discount September if you're including September's fall in numbers. It's basically impossible to discuss statistics and player numbers and ignore a month just because it makes October's rise look good. That's why the rise is good. That's why it's important it is either maintained, or staves off the loss rate vs. previous months.

 

[Gori the Grey]

CivFanatics: Come for tips on where to place a warehouse; stay for the animated debates over the statistical relevance of player counts in months with no patch.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

August (and July) were between two patches. August numbers started high because of a recent July patch that was steaming off slowly, and then got the August patch that reignigted numbers, so its not only the weekend with peak numbers that got the average up, but the fact that when the numbers were dropping, the next patch was announced and publshed. The same with June

September not only did not have a patch to increase its peak numbers, but also did not have anything to stop the decline

Therefore, September had lower peak numbers, but also lower minimum numbers, and yes, that is what made the average lower, thats how average works

What i am arguing is that September had a number of events missing that the other months had, and those are the reason for the unique lower numbers, not only compared to October (so no, its not about the new patch) but to any other point in Civ VII history

July and August show what months with patches were stabilized on, and those (two consecutive months with patches with similar numbers) should be the benchmark to compare other months with patches with. There is a reason why September had a 17%-18% drop in average numbers from BOTH previous months

The patch coming later in September is not the reason for lower numbers, the lower player count numbers started right away at the beginning of September. The only explanation I can see is students going back to school, college, university and having less time to play games.

 

[Crashdummy]

The patch coming later in September is not the reason for lower numbers, the lower player count numbers started right away at the beginning of September. The only explanation I can see is students going back to school, college, university and having less time to play games.

Lets make some analysis on this

Sunday 27 July has 11839 concurrent players (lets talk about players from now on, assuming the concurrent part)
Sunday 3 Augist (next weekend) has 10719 players
Sunday 10 August (next weekend) has 9595

After that, 1.2.4 patch was announed and the next weekend had a rise and the other weekend 1.2.4 launched and got another rise

Now, lets see what happens next

Sunday 24 August had 11871 players (players RISE after the patch announcement)
Sunday 31 August had 10407 players

These both weekends count towards August in player numbers but we cant see the trend is similar to the patch before

Sunday 6 September had 9670 (trend continues)

This is where the previous cycle got the announcement of the next patch, but we had nothing now, so instead of numbers stop going down because of new interest/marketing, the trend without anything new just contiunues


Sunday 14 September 9214 (numbers dont even go down that much, again, nothing new announced)
Sunday 21 September 8791

Now this is where 1.2.5 ghets announced

Sunday 28 September 9330 players (and after the patch gets announced, numbers start getting up, like before)
Sunday 5 October 12617 players (and here the new patchs is already rolled out)

I see a clear correlation of player interest going up only when patched are announced/deployed and going down always, and what i see in September is a bigger period of time between patches. Could students going back to school in the northern hemisphere (and not on the southern one where they never stopped going) have an impact? Sure, but the trend only gets up with patches announcement and deployment, always

The bigger period of time between patches also made the numbers peak lower than before

 

[Civinator]

Now, after 245 pages of posts in this thread, I have a simple question:

What is the sense of this thread ?

- If Firaxís will stop the support of Civ 7, this is their decision and has nothing to do with this thread.
- If Firaxis continues their support of Civ 7, this is also only their decision.

- If it will show the probability, if Firaxis will stop their support of Civ 7, this stays also only the decision of Firaxis and the border where this could happen is unknown. This point also doesn´t influence the decision of civers, if they should buy Civ 7 or not. Those who have bought Civ 7 have bought it and those who haven´t bought it yet (like me) have not bought it. The decision, if Civ 7 should be bought in the future is not dependant on the posts in this thread, but what Firaxis will fix in the future.

 

[Xandinho]

Now, after 245 pages of posts in this thread, I have a simple question:

What is the sense of this thread ?

- If Firaxís will stop the support of Civ 7, this is their decision and has nothing to do with this thread.
- If Firaxis continues their support of Civ 7, this is also only their decision.

- If it will show the probability, if Firaxis will stop their support of Civ 7, this stays also only the decision of Firaxis and the border where this could happen is unknown. This point also doesn´t influence the decision of civers, if they should buy Civ 7 or not. Those who have bought Civ 7 have bought it and those who haven´t bought it yet (like me) have not bought it. The decision, if Civ 7 should be bought in the future is not dependant on the posts in this thread, but what Firaxis will fix in the future.

Well, people are just reflecting on the numbers and thinking about what could be done to improve them. Maybe the devs will take some good ideas from here?

 

[Gorbles]

Now, after 245 pages of posts in this thread, I have a simple question:

What is the sense of this thread ?

- If Firaxís will stop the support of Civ 7, this is their decision and has nothing to do with this thread.
- If Firaxis continues their support of Civ 7, this is also only their decision.

- If it will show the probability, if Firaxis will stop their support of Civ 7, this stays also only the decision of Firaxis and the border where this could happen is unknown. This point also doesn´t influence the decision of civers, if they should buy Civ 7 or not. Those who have bought Civ 7 have bought it and those who haven´t bought it yet (like me) have not bought it. The decision, if Civ 7 should be bought in the future is not dependant on the posts in this thread, but what Firaxis will fix in the future.

Wait, we're under the impression that anything a bunch of fanatics argues over is anything but a bunch of self-titled fanatics arguing over things?


. . . am I in the wrong place?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Now, after 245 pages of posts in this thread . . . What is the sense of this thread?

The thread will expand to meet the needs of the expanding thread.

 

[kent77]

I think if I worked for Firaxis (I don't), my total attention to this thread might amount to an office pool on how long it might get before people get bored and move on.

Hard to imagine a few dozen fans' uninformed speculation about what trends in concurrent player counts might mean can trump any of the telemetry they have on the in-game behavior of tens of thousands of players every week and how that behavior is changing in response to the changes they are steadily rolling out.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Now, after 245 pages of posts in this thread, I have a simple question:

What is the sense of this thread ?

- If Firaxís will stop the support of Civ 7, this is their decision and has nothing to do with this thread.
- If Firaxis continues their support of Civ 7, this is also only their decision.

- If it will show the probability, if Firaxis will stop their support of Civ 7, this stays also only the decision of Firaxis and the border where this could happen is unknown. This point also doesn´t influence the decision of civers, if they should buy Civ 7 or not. Those who have bought Civ 7 have bought it and those who haven´t bought it yet (like me) have not bought it. The decision, if Civ 7 should be bought in the future is not dependant on the posts in this thread, but what Firaxis will fix in the future.

There's no sense, this thread is about speculation.

Normally, when you work with data, you try to find an answer to some very specific question. The question this thread mostly searches answer for is "Is Civ7 doing good?". But of course, since "good" is totally subjective, there's no answer.

And if you try to ask more specific question, like "Is Civ7 doing good enough to receive full long-time support like previous titles?" it quickly becomes obvious what we have far not enough data to answer it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think if I worked for Firaxis (I don't), my total attention to this thread might amount to an office pool on how long it might get before people get bored and move on.

And that's why it's imperative that we keep it going. Because Chuck in accounting put his money on April 16, 2029, and I'm rooting for him to win.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Lets make some analysis on this

Sunday 27 July has 11839 concurrent players (lets talk about players from now on, assuming the concurrent part)
Sunday 3 Augist (next weekend) has 10719 players
Sunday 10 August (next weekend) has 9595

After that, 1.2.4 patch was announed and the next weekend had a rise and the other weekend 1.2.4 launched and got another rise

Now, lets see what happens next

Sunday 24 August had 11871 players (players RISE after the patch announcement)
Sunday 31 August had 10407 players

These both weekends count towards August in player numbers but we cant see the trend is similar to the patch before

Sunday 6 September had 9670 (trend continues)

This is where the previous cycle got the announcement of the next patch, but we had nothing now, so instead of numbers stop going down because of new interest/marketing, the trend without anything new just contiunues


Sunday 14 September 9214 (numbers dont even go down that much, again, nothing new announced)
Sunday 21 September 8791

Now this is where 1.2.5 ghets announced

Sunday 28 September 9330 players (and after the patch gets announced, numbers start getting up, like before)
Sunday 5 October 12617 players (and here the new patchs is already rolled out)

I see a clear correlation of player interest going up only when patched are announced/deployed and going down always, and what i see in September is a bigger period of time between patches. Could students going back to school in the northern hemisphere (and not on the southern one where they never stopped going) have an impact? Sure, but the trend only gets up with patches announcement and deployment, always

The bigger period of time between patches also made the numbers peak lower than before

I agree that the player count pretty much always goes up after an update or key information on new patch (usually the week before patch it will see a very small bump followed by a big increase after the patch is released). Having said that, I'm fairly certain the September drop was not due to a bigger gap between updates.

 

[marius_kaparius]

This number is 0.03 higher than I've seen recently. Sign of a turnaround?