Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Smegger213]

It's absolutely amazing that some folks here see actual numbers and still deny reality.

Before the patch, recent reviews were 41% positive. Now, they're 46% positive. That's an improvement. What's the point in denying it?

Yet over the last 30 days there were over a 100 more negative reviews than positive ones.
How is that improving?
That's just the last 30 days too.
I am sure that if I added up the reviews over the last 3 months, there would be more negative ones than positive ones.
It has to be that way because the total review count is still 53% negative.

 

[kotpeter]

Yet over the last 30 days there were over a 100 more negative reviews than positive ones.
How is that improving?
That's just the last 30 days too.
I am sure that if I added up the reviews over the last 3 months, there would be more negative ones than positive ones.
It has to be that way because the total review count is still 53% negative.

If you want to see if something got better or worse, you take two time periods, compute the metric for each, and then compare metrics. You do not mix the data within periods, nor do you compare both of them to some ideal metric.

Surely if you add more than the past 30 days to the equation, you'll see even worse numbers, because overall score for the time period before the latest 30 days is indeed worse. So the latest 30 days are better than the 30 days before the latest 30 days. Hope it makes sense.

And I also hope you're not trolling us "copium inhaling people" with your statements.

 

[Evolena]

Yet over the last 30 days there were over a 100 more negative reviews than positive ones.
How is that improving?

It depends. Is it 100 more negative reviews than positive ones out of 200 total (50%) or out of 1000 total (10%)?
That number alone means nothing.

That's just the last 30 days too.
I am sure that if I added up the reviews over the last 3 months, there would be more negative ones than positive ones.
It has to be that way because the total review count is still 53% negative.

Yeah, that's why the recent reviews are at 46% positive, because there still is more negative than positive.
But more negatives than positives can describe 46% positive as well as 10% positive, so yet again that statement alone means nothing.

 

[Leucarum]

TLDR: Bad and Getting Better are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Siptah]

For player numbers it is too soon to be certain, but it does look as if we're seeing a jump followed by a reversion to the mean player count, rather than a sustained revival.

I think for player numbers to permanently rise, it's necessary to find more owners. I personally like civ 7 a lot, but it's not a game I'd play every day or even week or month – just as all other civ games prior. I play it in phases, and then drop it for some weeks/months again until there's a reason to pick it up again or because I just have the itch. I assume it is similar for most people (exceptions exist though, I've read this as well). If you look at civ 5 or 6, you can see that only a small fraction of owners have played the game in the past weeks (1-2% according to Playtracker) and the concurrent player count compared to owners is tiny (using gamalytic data). Civ 7 is doing much better in both metrics, but it lacks the giant number of owners/players that the previous games had. And it won't get to these numbers of owners/players due to the popular perception of the game, which is in my opinion much worse than the actual game is, and maybe will thus get more and more problematic in the long run.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think for player numbers to permanently rise, it's necessary to find more owners. I personally like civ 7 a lot, but it's not a game I'd play every day or even week or month – just as all other civ games prior. I play it in phases, and then drop it for some weeks/months again until there's a reason to pick it up again or because I just have the itch. I assume it is similar for most people (exceptions exist though, I've read this as well). If you look at civ 5 or 6, you can see that only a small fraction of owners have played the game in the past weeks (1-2% according to Playtracker) and the concurrent player count compared to owners is tiny (using gamalytic data). Civ 7 is doing much better in both metrics, but it lacks the giant number of owners/players that the previous games had. And it won't get to these numbers of owners/players due to the popular perception of the game, which is in my opinion much worse than the actual game is, and maybe will thus get more and more problematic in the long run.

The popular perception of the game is that it is no longer a game where you build an empire to stand the test of time in an emergent sandbox.

It’s Humankind in a Civ wrapper. That isn’t better or worse, it’s accurate.

It’s no wonder so much of the playerbase refused to buy it.

 

[Smegger213]

It depends. Is it 100 more negative reviews than positive ones out of 200 total (50%) or out of 1000 total (10%)?
That number alone means nothing.

Yeah, that's why the recent reviews are at 46% positive, because there still is more negative than positive.
But more negatives than positives can describe 46% positive as well as 10% positive, so yet again that statement alone means nothing.

Add up the positive reviews over the last 30 days, you will get 472.
Then add up the negative ones over the last 30 days, you will get 577.
There will be a small number more because there are a few more reviews today since when I counted this morning.
Total reviews 1049.
So, out of the total number of reviews over the last 30 days. There were 105 more negative ones than positive ones.

But, lets go and look at September then.
For the 30 days of September there were 319 positive, compared to 603 negative. Total 922. That's nearly 300 more negative to positive ones.
Yes, clearly there were more negative reviews than positive ones in September.

But, you can't compare the total reviews in each month because it will always be different.

Which is why I keep saying that its the total number of reviews overall that count. Plus the actual player numbers.
That total review count has remained at 53% negative for months.

 

[Xur]

View attachment 745587
Here is a simple graph to help you understand why people are saying reviews are improving. See how October has the best positive % since launch?

No, the player count numbers aren't back to September levels, as I've already proven in other comments. The average peak concurrent players for week 37 is so far 8,528. The average peak concurrent players for the weeks in September are: 7,710, 7,298, 7,054 & 8,020. We are still 508 to 1,474 higher.

View attachment 745588

It would be more fair to say that the reviews are returning to "normal" - that "normal" is still below 50%. To make that crystal clear for you, that's still the majority of people disliking the game for 8 consecutive months since release. That's only a comment on "recent reviews" per month.

If we talk "overall reviews", then they are at 47%. In fact reviews has been on a downward trend since launch. Each day, week or month that is below 47%, the score is further set in stone and even get's worse than 47%. It is getting harder and harder for Firaxis to turn this around the longer they let this go on. Maybe they hope they can change some of the negative reviews, but to my knowledge that is harder than getting new reviews.

I can illustrate the giant hole civ7 is in by a little thought experiment. What if we wanted civ7 to reach a 75% positive review score and the current reviews stay as they are. How many more reviews would we need? If we are generous and assume all new reviews have a 80% positive 20% negative split, then they would need 204.888 more reviews (I dont assume anyone care for the calculation?). Compare that number to their current 36.584 reviews. That would require anything from 6 million to 15 million more sales on Steam - depending on how review happy those buyers are. The 6 million is a rather agressive 1 review in 30 sales. I personally find this scenario almost impossible.

I think Firaxis would have to at least change some of the negative votes. Let's assume 25% of the current negative votes changed to positive and that new sales gave 80% positive votes. Then they would need 107.930 more reviews. Still quite a mountain to climb when considering they got 36.584 votes in almost a year (the first year even). The damage is done and repairs aren't even being talked about.

It's not like 75% is a stellar score either. Either way you slice it, Firaxis would have to do something EXTREME to get that momentum.

I hope you can see why your claim that things are turning around is silly or straight up dishonest? That doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game.

 

[Wrenched]

If you like Civ 5 or 6 Humankind or Old World more and strongly dislike Civ 7, why even visit this subforum and thread in the first place?

The diversity of perspectives and opinions is refreshing and helps us get a little closer to accuracy or truth. Individually, there is some warping of data, obfuscation, omission, and unverifiable claims. In aggregate we get a clearer picture.

Wishing away all the pessimists is fair, but not sure that a thread swinging towards toxic positivity would be all that constructive either. Palliative to some participants sure! There is a possibility that negative criticism wasn't properly incorporated into the design process (just a wild guess). Seems unhelpful to repeat that here.

 

[kotpeter]

The diversity of perspectives and opinions are refreshing and help us get a little closer to accuracy or truth. Individually, there is some warping of data, obfuscation, omission, and unverifiable claims. In aggregate we get a clearer picture.

Wishing away all the pessimists is fair, but not sure that a thread swinging towards toxic positivity would be all that constructive either. Palliative to some participants sure! There is a possibility that negative criticism wasn't properly incorporated into the design process (just a wild guess). Seems unhelpful to repeat that here.

That's a good point. I just wish critics of the game were more creative with their arguments instead of echoing the same thoughts over and over.

 

[Xur]

That's a good point. I just wish critics of the game were more creative with their arguments instead of echoing the same thoughts over and over.

I don't like pickles. It's usually enough to say that. I am not required to be "creative" about my distaste for them.

 

[Smegger213]

OK, I can express it in percentages for you. Last 30 days, 472 positive vs 577 negative = 45% positive.
30 days in September, 319 positive reviews vs 603 negative = 34.6% positive.

So, yes, the positive count has got a higher over the last 30 days.
But, as those last 30 days still include some days in September, then it isn't truly accurate.
The only way, will be to see the review count for the whole of October at the end of the month.
Then a proper comparison can be made.

What is certain, is the fact that the total review count difference hasn't changed for months.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think for player numbers to permanently rise, it's necessary to find more owners.

Correction - it's necessary to find more owners than defectors. There are always people who leave the game temporarily or permanently. Seeing stable rise without triggers for return means not just new owners, it means a lot of new owners.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The number of pages here arguing whether 46 is more than 42

 

[kotpeter]

The number of pages here arguing whether 46 is more than 42

I mean, the number of reviews is differerent underneath each percentage, so it needs some time and a few clarifications to get everyone on the same page.

 

[Evolena]

The number of pages here arguing whether 46 is more than 42

And whether the two are still both under 49.

I mean, the number of reviews is differerent underneath each percentage, so it needs some time and a few clarifications to get everyone on the same page.

That's the very purpose of percentages: to be able to compare things that don't have the same count total.

 

[kotpeter]

And whether the two are still both under 49.

That's the very purpose of percentages: to be able to compare things that don't have the same count total.

While I generally agree with this statement, if the total count is very different, percentages may actually lie or show incomplete picture.

E.g. if number of reviews dropped 5x compared to past month, we shouldn't look at percentages.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

It would be more fair to say that the reviews are returning to "normal" - that "normal" is still below 50%. To make that crystal clear for you, that's still the majority of people disliking the game for 8 consecutive months since release. That's only a comment on "recent reviews" per month.

If we talk "overall reviews", then they are at 47%. In fact reviews has been on a downward trend since launch. Each day, week or month that is below 47%, the score is further set in stone and even get's worse than 47%. It is getting harder and harder for Firaxis to turn this around the longer they let this go on. Maybe they hope they can change some of the negative reviews, but to my knowledge that is harder than getting new reviews.

I can illustrate the giant hole civ7 is in by a little thought experiment. What if we wanted civ7 to reach a 75% positive review score and the current reviews stay as they are. How many more reviews would we need? If we are generous and assume all new reviews have a 80% positive 20% negative split, then they would need 204.888 more reviews (I dont assume anyone care for the calculation?). Compare that number to their current 36.584 reviews. That would require anything from 6 million to 15 million more sales on Steam - depending on how review happy those buyers are. The 6 million is a rather agressive 1 review in 30 sales. I personally find this scenario almost impossible.

I think Firaxis would have to at least change some of the negative votes. Let's assume 25% of the current negative votes changed to positive and that new sales gave 80% positive votes. Then they would need 107.930 more reviews. Still quite a mountain to climb when considering they got 36.584 votes in almost a year (the first year even). The damage is done and repairs aren't even being talked about.

It's not like 75% is a stellar score either. Either way you slice it, Firaxis would have to do something EXTREME to get that momentum.

What are you saying is "normal"? It has been "normal" to see reviews well below 40%. The past 2 weeks with reviews being 50% is not normal. They're the best 2 weeks since February. It hasn't been on a constant downward trend since launch, it has been up and down. Take a look:

Civ VI went from from a low overall score of 66% to high overall score of 87%. If Civ VI can do that, I think Civ VII can reach at least 70%. It will take years, no doubt. Recent reviews consistently hitting 50% is the first step. The past 2 weeks are 50%, we will see if they hold, improve, or decline. As usual, I will report the worse numbers as well as the better numbers. Unfortunately some people are unable to acknowledge when things start to look better.

I hope you can see why your claim that things are turning around is silly or straight up dishonest? That doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game.

No, I can't see why. How exactly have I been silly or dishonest when I've been quoting factual data which gets ignored?

 

[kotpeter]

I'm not sure if your trolling at this point? It's an analogy of criticism and why is stays the same in a scenario where the product has not changed. Unlike a pickle, Civilization is a franchise I used to like. That's why I joined. Why are you here? Just to...?

I'm here to stay on the topic of the discussion, contribute to it and hear what others have to say. If you saw the latest few pages of this thread, you probably noticed that every once in a while there's something positive about the game's reception (even if it's wrong or a mere assumption), and few posters echo the same claims "the game is dying", "reviews are bad", "only classic mode can save it", etc. A valid opinion that matters, but it won't matter more if repeated several times without additional arguments and more context. And some of those people don't care neither for Civ 7, nor for the different perspective of some people in this thread, that the game is fun for them.

I apologize if I made you feel bad. I interpreted your surprising pickles analogy as yet another attempt to de-value the perspective of those who like "pickles".

 

[Gorbles]

Wishing away all the pessimists is fair, but not sure that a thread swinging towards toxic positivity would be all that constructive either.

And the constant push-and-pull of this thread is that the opposite also applies. Wishing away all the optimists is fair, but swinging the thread towards toxic negativity ain't that constructive either.

It's simple. People observing negative trends (objectively, without inserting pointed commentary, or targeting other posters) should be treated exactly the same as people observing positive trends (objectively, without inserting pointed commentary, or targeting other posters). In that both should be welcome to do so.

You get an idea of what "toxicity" means by hitting ctrl + f and typing "cope" or "copium", as an example. I'm sure there are other examples, too. Pushing back on any kind of toxicity is itself not (necessarily) toxic. It's an attempt at a course correction.